Anthony B. Wight
Students are generally introduced to topics of diversity and heredity in 7th and 8th grade science classes. These topics are explored further in a variety of Biology courses during the first or second year of high school. This unit is aimed primarily at students in the upper grades of high school for whom an interdisciplinary setting might provide rich interplay between scientific evidence and broad reaching ideas and questions about evolution.
In my school, a magnet public high school of about 240 students, I have undertaken the development of just such an interdisciplinary science and humanities course with one of my colleagues from our English Department. During one quarter of the year (nine weeks) students can enroll in an intensive seminar of this nature which meets for three hours daily. Although this may seem to most teachers to be an enormous amount of time to prepare for, it offers exceptional opportunities for extended study, research, writing, and discussion. In this unit I present an overview of the science curriculum for this seminar; my colleague has prepared separately a plan for the humanities curriculum. Since we teach together for the entire three hours daily we blend ideas and draw upon each other as resources throughout the course.
For the purposes of organization, I have divided the unit into three themes:
I. The Origins of Life: Creation vs. Science?
This first theme sets the stage for inquiry and seeks to engage students at a variety of levels, providing “hooks and handles” for the humanities component of the interdisciplinary seminar through readings from several creation myths and posing some “unanswered questions in science.”
II. Theories of Evolution
-
A brief background in development of theories of evolution—from the early Greek philosopher-scientists to the modern day molecular biologists. After Darwin two lines of study developed in pursuit of knowledge about human evolution—fossil hunters and geneticists.
III. The Chemical Basis of Life
Evolution from the perspective of late 20th century theorists—the molecular geneticists. The human genome, the pinnacle of chemical organization of human life, provides a glimpse, or snapshot, of the leading edge of present day evolution among humans and the arena for mutation and change in the future.
I. The Origins of Life: Creation vs. Science?
Objectives: Students should be able to
-
1. explain the purpose of creation myths.
-
2. compare and contrast two different myths of creation and identify common themes and differences.
-
3. explain the difference between “creationist” and scientific views of life.
-
4. compare and contrast “hypothesis” and “theory” and give an example of each.
-
5. distinguish the characteristics of science from pseudoscience.
-
6. explain how a scientist works to resolve an “unanswered” question of science.
Strategies:
-
1. Copies of several creation myths will be provided for study. Small groups of students will read, discuss, and present each myth to the class.
-
2. Reading of examples and discussion of relationships among biology, technology, and ethics.
-
3. Lecture: Introduction to Charles Darwin’s life and work as one example of a scientist using observation—hypothesis—experiment—prediction—theory.
-
4. Development of concept map to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.
-
5. Written summary of class discussion of the Huck Finn and Jim debate over the origin of stars.
-
6. Group study and discussion of unanswered or “open” science questions—written summary by students for sharing with the class, based on reading of articles:1
-
____
a. Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
-
____
b. Did Life on Earth Arise by Chance?
-
____
c. Where Did the First Animals Come From?
-
____
d. Do We Share Common Ancestry With Apes?
Discussion: We had the sky, up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made, or only just happened—Jim he allowed they was made, or only just happened; I judged it would have took too long to make so many. Jim said the moon could a laid them; well, that looked kind of reasonable, so I didn’t say nothing against it, because I’ve seen a frog lay most as many, so of course it could be done.
2
In Mark Twain’s classic American novel,
Huckleberry Finn
, quoted above, Huck and Jim ponder the world and how it came to be. Without knowing much science or philosophy or religion, they wrestle with the profound question of whether some ultimate purpose lies behind the world. Is all existence the result of a creator—God, or of self-directed forces of happenstance (or, perhaps, to some combination of “first cause” and random after effect)?
At the heart of wisdom is the search for an answer to that question. If stars “only just happened, “then nature can be seen as merely due to random, accidental events and processes. This answer might imply that human beings are only physical objects without value or intrinsic worth. Likewise, if stars were “made” then perhaps all nature was meant to be. All living things might be viewed as purposeful, bearing the signs of a creator’s intentions. Life takes on a sacred dimension. Humans, especially, become obligated to treat each other and their whole earthly environment with dignity and respect. A sense of connectedness and interdependence among living organisms is a common thread which runs throughout creation myths from widely different cultures. Perhaps a resurgence of this awareness accounts in part for the recent large scale outpouring of concern for the future of the earth.
But there is a danger in over-romanticizing this “creationist” interpretation of life. When Huck and Jim decide that the moon gave birth to the stars, their answer, however satisfying at the moment, makes no sense from a scientific standpoint. It is contradicted by too much evidence.
The welfare of any modern nation depends on its science and technology. U.S. industry, national defense, even health, rely on progress in fields such as geology, physics, and genetics. Science implies scientists, who must be accurately taught. In schools and colleges, there can be no contamination of the teaching of science by irrelevant philosophies or prejudices, no matter how time honored these may be.
3
Philip Dunne, in the above statement published recently, emphasizes our current predicament as science educators: Science teachers today are often wary of an ongoing controversy—the American public seems divided over what students should be taught about origins, particularly human origins. Yet when science is properly taught, questions of origins become opportunities for classroom dialogue. Students who learn to distinguish between scientific discoveries and the assumptions buried within them gain a better appreciation of what science is. Similarly, an understanding that a scientific
theory
is not a “guess,” but a well-tested hypothesis which not only explains evidence but predicts future data, can eliminate some of the popular confusion which posits belief in the Bible, Koran, or other religious canons as equal to “belief” in science.
For some of the deepest questions about life’s meaning and purpose, religious faith is part of the investigative process. The methods of science seek to investigate the
how and when
, but cannot step outside nature to probe why things exist or whether a greater intelligence lies behind our own existence.
4
“The mystery of creation, as every real scientist is quick to admit, is not one that science is capable of solving.”
5
For many students, however, the two sets of questions (“how” versus “why”) appear confused and entangled.
Scientific knowledge keeps expanding and thus students must always be taught some things that were unknown when their parents went to school. But good science teaching means more than conveying information about what scientists have learned. A more vital task is teaching the particular way that scientists look at the world. The fact that this way may not be fully appreciated by even technologically sophisticated students makes the prospect quite challenging. Valid scientific conclusions are based on valid evidence. Students need to learn how to evaluate evidence as scientists are trained to do—essentially taking all relevant facts into consideration while searching for still more evidence. How the world works is what scientists are continually investigating, and research has led to tremendous improvements in food, medicine, health care, computers, etc. However, in gaining knowledge, scientists have also challenged the way people think and this sometimes causes problems. To provide both rationale and guidelines for constructive classroom dialogue, students will need to clarify terms and practice the skill of identifying similarities and differences between the concepts of “science” and “pseudoscience.” Drawing a concept map as a lecture/note taking exercise may help achieve these goals.
