How to educate the anti–evolutionist

Defending Evolution: A Guide to the Creation/Evolution Controversy. By Brian J. Alters & Sandra M. Alters. Bartlett and Jones Publishers, Sudbury, MA, USA. 2001. 261 pp. Price $29.95, ISBN 0-7637-1923-4. My colleagues in non-US countries often express amazement and amusement at the creationist assault on science in America. Alters and Alters describe this conflict with the metaphors of war that the creationists themselves use. They show how this is a religious war of hearts and minds that is played out in classrooms from early grades through university, though instructors may be largely unaware that there is a war or that it is taking place in their classes. Rather than engage in the rhetoric and tactics of war, however, Alters and Alters advocate a reasoned, understanding approach that is sympathetic with the concerns and backgrounds of students. They explain these issues and where they come from, and then outline strategies that respect students and their beliefs. They show how to recognize when you, as an instructor, are being asked about your sympathies, through the use of `code phrases' that, like many scientific terms, have different meanings in specialized and lay contexts. The authors then suggest ways to deflect the begged questions, examine underlying assumptions and conceptions, and construct new ways of addressing what is a very real conflict for a large proportion of students. Although a great many books, most written by prominent evolutionary scientists, deal competently and engagingly with the issues of science and creationism, this book stands apart from the rest by its patient and sympathetic explanation of the controversy as seen from the standpoint of the students and their parents who are raised in a creationist tradition. It is moreover different because it focuses on classroom and public strategies that deal less with the science – which is usually too complex to explain briefly and succinctly to laypeople, and in any case is not the real issue in these conflicts – than with the perceived threat to belief systems, the social order, and the fate of souls who do not renounce godless evolution in favour of fundamentalist Christianity. Alters and Alters are also sympathetic to the scientists and instructors who have difficulty accepting that anyone could challenge a concept as beautifully and simply explanatory as evolution – and on religious grounds, at that. There is an almost touching parallel here: fundamentalist Christian students cannot understand the evidence or motivation that would persuade a person to reject Biblical teaching, when so much is at stake. In the end, Alters and Alters propose to begin where good science and science education start: with an explanation of what science is and is not, and what education is and is not. They discuss how to clarify student misconceptions of science either as authoritarian or as too tentative to accept anything as `truth'. And they explain that education about evolution, even for those who profess not to (be allowed to) accept it, is important to promote understanding, rather than to compel belief. For me, the chapters that stand out the most (though all are excellent) deal with specific questions and answers that are posed by students, laypeople and teachers about evolution and teaching evolution. The answers are thoughtful and practical, and encourage all sides to think about the deep meanings (in the sociocultural more than scientific sense) of the questions that are being asked. `How can you teach something that no one can see?', `If organisms evolved, then why do they look so well designed?', `Why can't you prove evolution to me?' and `Are you telling me that miracles don't happen?' may seem to have easy answers to the scientist, but they do not to many students. An instructor who has some idea of how these questions need to be answered sympathetically before a student can hear the answers will have an advantage in getting his point across, whether or not the student accepts it. The book's title reflects its diplomatic approach, an attempt to deflect the assaults of fundamentalists in the `war' on science education. The authors advocate a constructivist approach to teaching about evolution. First, the student's worldview should be revealed by presenting a situation that requires the student to use the worldview. The situation should be crafted so that there are clear difficulties or difficult implications of applying the worldview without modification. In subsequent discussion, the student is led to question the worldview and to determine whether it should be modified in at least some instances. This constructivist approach to belief systems, in my view, can be effective in focusing the student on conflicts that may be less philosophical than authoritarian. For example, `Thou shalt not kill' is a commandment, and most fundamentalists abhor abortion because they regard it as killing. But should Christian fundamentalists regard all killing as impermissible? Clearly, they do not; they make exceptions in times of war, when a religious (or even secular) leader gives permission, and most are in favour of the death penalty. Many secretly (or openly) condone the actions of those who murder doctors who perform abortions. How, then, do we `know' whether to ignore a commandment? Who is authorized to interpret and even suspend divine word? And, given that, who is to say how that word is to be interpreted when empirical evidence conflicts with a given literal reading of Biblical text – or when there are conflicting moral imperatives? This last example is not taken from the book, and is rather more confrontational in tone than the authors generally advocate. Although most of Defending Evolution does what its title denotes, Alters and Alters seldom go so far as to focus the burden of explanation on the students, parents and others who question or oppose evolution. They generally advocate explanation of science without alienation, and this approach is effective because it will encourage further dialogue. However, many scientists and social observers see the need to question both sides. Why should creationists be tacitly allowed the moral or theological high ground by conducting discussions that `defend' evolution, when it is their worldview that has difficulty dealing with those of the rest of the world? A further example may illustrate. `Doesn't evolution necessarily lead to moral decay?' is a common refrain of creationists that Alters and Alters discuss. If humans simply descended from animals and lacked divine inspiration, why should they not share an animal's lack of morals? Alters and Alters carefully explain the origins of this fear in Genesis, and the fear that if more people knew about evolution they might reject religion altogether. Alters and Alters suggest the response that there are many upstanding people who accept evolution, including religious leaders; and furthermore that moral values cannot be found in nature. This is fine as far as it goes, and it may give some students pause. A more aggressive response, which they do not suggest, and which might alienate some creationists, is that few if any animals show the cruelty to their species and others that humans do; and that most wars, oppressions, and jihads have been based on religious prejudice, and never on evolutionary precepts (the mendacious attempts to associate evolution with Marxism and Nazism notwithstanding). Furthermore, the fact that many religious leaders and denominations accept evolution does not impress fundamentalists, because they are convinced that only they have the answers. This last approach will probably not satisfy any more creationists than the first approach would. In the end, however, there is the larger question in America of who needs to be convinced. It is unlikely that creationists can be convinced at all; if they slip out of fundamentalism it is generally for reasons that are not intellectual – just as Darwin gave up on divine Providence not because of his studies of nature but because of the death of his favourite daughter. In America, the Gallup Poll, which asks ignorantly phrased questions about the issue, has for decades reported that about half of Americans do not accept evolution. A better designed survey commissioned by People for the American Way in 2000 came up with quite a different profile of respondents. For most questions, about 20% seemed to accept science, have no strong or dogmatic beliefs about religion and science, and often were atheistic or agnostic. About 25–30% were consistently orientated toward hard-line, fundamentalist beliefs that rejected evolution and accepted Biblical literalism. Then there were about 50% of the people in the middle, who seemed to have religious beliefs but felt that they did not necessarily conflict with science, depending on how the questions were asked; moreover, they had a strong sense of fairness but realized the difference between science and religion and did not think the two should be confused in classrooms. And they did not necessarily have problems with evolution, but neither did they seem to understand it very well. This middle 50% is the American `target audience'. Most of what Alters and Alters discuss is designed to approach even the most hard-line creationists, although the authors acknowledge (and explain why) few of them will be swayed by arguments contrary to what they have been taught to believe. The same arguments will be more persuasive to a middle-of-the-road audience. And, in a forum in which the entire spectrum of worldviews is represented, the honest, straightforward approach and advice of the authors would be difficult to improve upon. There is a further complication in the American arena, however, and that is the campaign of misinformation and distortion of science that has been waged by American fundamentalists for decades. It used to go under the name of `creation science', and claimed that there was strong evidence from many scientific disciplines against evolution. These claims were ridiculed by scientists, and the `creation science' legislation adopted in several states was struck down as having a clear religious purpose. All this did nothing for that 25–30% who were willing to believe it and were generally unsophisticated about science. Alters and Alters explain `creation science' briefly and well. In the past decade this movement, which mostly consists of `young-earth' creationists (those who tend to accept the Bible more literally, and who do not accept that the Earth is older than about 10 000 years), has been eclipsed by a more subtle movement called Intelligent Design (ID). Its advocates, who do not seem to realize that their arguments were last espoused by William Paley in the 1700s and rejected even then on both scientific and theological grounds, propose that natural mechanisms are insufficient to account for the obvious fittedness of organisms for their roles in life, and that therefore a Designer must be invoked. Downplaying their differences with the `young-earth' creationists, and careful not to reveal too much about who this Designer is and what else they believe, these apologists mix some of the standard `creation-science' arguments with crypto-scientific legerdemain involving information theory, chance and probability, supposed irreducible complexity, and complete confusion about the difference between philosophical and methodological naturalism. Scientists on the whole remain unimpressed, except if they already belong to that 25–30% discussed above. But the IDers do not care to convince scientists, any more than the `creation scientists' do. They are aiming at that 50% in the middle of the American public. They are trying to convince these people that `Darwinism' excludes God, is founded on unsupportable random processes, and is morally and philosophically bankrupt. They are gaining ground in some `mainstream' Christian forums, largely because mainstream theologians and religious leaders seem too unsure of their own doctrines to oppose them vocally. Alters and Alters spend less time than they might on this movement, which is still defining itself. However, as ID becomes less of a moving target – which it will as its principal spokesmen continue to embarrass themselves with scientific inanities and public pomposities – it may be hoped that Alters and Alters will produce a follow-up volume to complement this one that focuses on specific claims of the neo-Paleyites. I hope that the foregoing paragraphs have convinced you that this compact, informative, and straightforward volume is about the best imaginable brief resource for understanding arguments and orientations against evolution, and in helping teachers of evolution and all scientific disciplines craft approaches to explaining science to their students. This volume is not designed to be consulted for scientific information to dispel and debunk all criticisms of evolution; the authors provide many resources for those purposes. Its difference from other very useful books, and therefore its strength, is in its concise review of the history and background of anti-evolutionary attitudes, and in its commendable and diplomatic approaches to teaching the conflict. This book should be near at hand to every scientist and teacher who is confronted with the creation–evolution controversies.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.