To Effectively Discuss Evolution, First Define 'Theory'

Evolution is the backbone of modern biology, but life scientists sometimes face audiences who perceive it as a threat to their religious beliefs. With laws such as North Carolina House Bill 511, proposed in March as an attempt to "ensure that evolution is not taught as fact in North Carolina public schools," scientists are being asked to clarify the distinction between science and religion. Professors at small Southern and Midwestern colleges seem to have the most experience in discussing-and sometimes defending-evolution in the classroom and in debate. Photo: A. Winslow A CONTEXT: Evolution is "far and away the best explanatory framework" for understanding scientific data, says Southern Illinois University David King. According to "creation scientists," who try to present the biblical view of creation as science, the scientific community argues about the validity of evolution. This isn't so, states David King, an associate professor in the anatomy department at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Carbondale. "The modern theory of evolution is almost universally accepted among scientists. It is far and away the best explanatory framework ever proposed for understanding data from paleontology, biogeography, systematics, comparative anatomy and physiology, ecology, ethology, population genetics, and molecular genetics." But a few scientists evoke an "intelligent designer" to explain complex cells and molecules, as does Lehigh University associate professor of biochemistry Michael J. Behe in Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York, Free Press/Simon and Schuster, 1996). One of Behe's main issues is "that of 'irreducible complexity,'" says Kim Summerhays, a professor of chemistry and computer science at the University of San Francisco. "This is the notion that organisms are so remarkably complex in their inner workings that it stretches reason to think that all of their individual components, which work intricately together, have all come to be on the basis of only random chance." Most scientists dismiss Behe's reliance on the hand of an intelligent creator to explain what we do not know about evolution as not being the evidence on which true science is based, as does Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, in a book review (J. Coyne, Nature, 83:227, 1996). Creation scientists, however, happily embraced the prominent biochemist as casting doubt on the scientific community's general acceptance of Darwinian evolution. Like Behe, Lance Rutherford, a laboratory instructor in biology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, views the observations on which evolutionary theory is based from a more spiritual perspective. "The Genesis world history model is a more viable, rational model than is the evolutionary model," Rutherford contends. "We [creationist-scientists] attempt to discern the scientific 'how' and 'when' questions based on different underlying assumptions than the assumptions underlying macroevolution." A scientist discussing evolution with a less-than-enthusiastic audience must have knowledge, communication skills, and self-control, say those who've met the challenge. In the classroom, professors have control. But in a debate with a creationist, scientists are often caught off-guard. To have a productive conversation with creation scientists or inquisitive students, life scientists would do well to learn about the philosophies of those who don't ascribe to the theories of Darwinian evolution. Creation science presents biblical ideas as science in an attempt to enter biology curricula and classrooms. Much of the effort is semantic, such as the "scientific special creation" that the St. Joseph, Mo.-based Creation Research Society espouses. A stronger but still unclear statement comes from an organization based in Santee, Calif.: "Our passion at the Institute for Creation Research is to see science return to its rightful God-glorifying position." The 1982 case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education presented specific creation- science concepts: sudden and recent creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; inability of mutation and natural selection to explain life's descent from a common ancestor; limited changes only among originally created kinds of plants and animals; separate ancestry for man and apes; and geology from catastrophism. Yet this is one narrow view. Pope John Paul II's statement in October 1996 that evolution is more than a hypothesis was the fourth time that the Roman Catholic Church has recognized an aspect of evolutionary theory (see Opinion). ACCOMMODATING VIEWS: Teachers should be mindful that scientific thinking may not play a significant role in the lives of some students, advises University of Georgia's David Jackson Creation science pits evolution against the Bible. "Antievolutionists say that people have to choose between evolution and religion," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the nonprofit, El-Cerrito, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education, which supports teaching evolution. But Kerry Fulcher, a professor of biology at Point Loma Nazarene College in San Diego, which is a short drive from the Institute for Creation Research, claims both sides contribute to antagonism. "The creation/evolution debate is fueled by both creationists making dogmatic interpretations of scripture and trying to wave their hands fast enough to make us believe their skilled rhetoric is science, and 'religious' evolutionists who claim that scientific evidence for evolution elevates it to a position of creative power that negates the idea of God. These are two small but very vocal minorities, driving what should be a non-issue." TEACH BOTH VIEWS: A survey of Manchester College students noted that even those who supported evolution believed that creationism should also be taught, reports David Hicks. The appearance of conflict confuses students. David Hicks, an associate professor of biology at Manchester College in North Manchester, Ind., had students in his freshman seminar course "The Evolution Revolution" survey 63 of their friends about the creation-evolution issue. The survey found that firm belief in creationism correlated to degree of religious commitment, but not to level of education or major. Most telling was opinion on education. "An overwhelming majority felt that both creationism and evolution should be taught in public schools. Even those who support evolution strongly feel that both should be taught," Hicks reports. Many nonscientists, including former President Ronald Reagan, have dismissed evolution as "just a theory." To correct this view, many professors suggest that a good starting point for classroom discussion of evolution is to define a theory. A scientific theory explains a natural phenomenon based on abundant observations and data. In its more informal sense, a theory is a guess. "This is why I urge consideration of replacing the term 'theory of evolution' with 'principle of evolution,' to avoid the misunderstanding that there is not 'evidence' for evolution," advises James Freed, a professor of zoology at Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware, Ohio. When classroom discussion turns to evidence, the goal is to convince students to think. "The strategy that I have found to work best is to try to get them to start with an open mind," says Fulcher. "Many of them are so closed-minded from their indoctrination with creationism that they will not even consider evolution." BITS AND PIECES: Biologist Sharron Clark says when given basic principles of evolution, "rarely do people find difficulty accepting the individual parts." Sharron Clark, a professor of biology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, Calif., presents select evidence gradually. "Introducing little bits and pieces of evolution, like a good salesperson does, is a better way to teach," she suggests. "When the basic principles of biological change over time are introduced, rarely do people find difficulty accepting the individual parts." The classroom climate influences student response, according to many instructors. "College professors, regardless of their feelings, should present evolution in a fashion that allows listeners to make their own accommodations. Many biologists haven't thought this through completely," notes Scott. To do this, professors should recognize that their students may not be able to separate science from religion. Clark and others suggest that professors avoid sounding confrontational. "Our job is to make students understand the theory of evolution and the facts that support it. But teachers should be less arrogant about the role of scientific thinking as opposed to other kinds of thinking in the lives of students," says David Jackson, an associate professor of science education at the University of Georgia in Athens. PREPARATION IS KEY: Eastern Tennessee State’s Niall Shanks notes the importance of doing one's homework before debating creationists. Teaching experience helped Niall Shanks, an associate professor of philosophy and biological sciences at Eastern Tennessee State University in Johnson City, prepare for debating creationists. But that wasn't enough-Shanks had to do his homework. "The biggest failing on the parts of scientists is lack of preparation, misunderstanding what the audience is there for, and realizing what you can accomplish," he says. "But if you go in prepared, it can be tremendous fun." By scrutinizing videotapes of Duane Gish, senior vice president of the Institute for Creation Research, Shanks countered Gish's arguments before he even made them in an April 1996 debate. The biology student honor society had asked Shanks to take on Gish. "I didn't know too much about Gish, but I heard of his reputation as a real killer debater. I became curious, because I used to do a lot of debating. So I saw the request to debate as a challenge," Shanks recalls. Shanks is a rarity-many scientists advise avoiding debate of the evolution issue. "It is counterproductive to debate creationists in a public forum, because the creationist movement is built on the notion of 'winning' the debate and making college professors look stupid. The debate topics are always constructed to make scientists 'defend' the idea of evolution," says Edwin House, dean of research at Idaho State University in Pocatello. House often speaks to the state legislature and board of education about evolution. But Trent Stephens, a professor of anatomy at the university, sees danger in avoiding debate: "The problem with not meeting them in debate is that they count a 'no-show' on a college or university campus as 'a win.'" Scientists who have debated creationists offer tips to avoid becoming what Scott calls "a punching bag." First, know the rules. When James Fetzer, McKnight Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, debated Walter Brown, director of the Phoenix, Ariz.-based Center for Scientific Creation in September 1996, he discovered that Brown had elaborate rules that even specified podium arrangement. "There was a time clock on the exchange, so if you violated a rule, you could have time deducted," he recalls. "At one point, I had 27 seconds left, and he had 39 minutes! It quickly became clear that his approach was highly scripted. My function was very much that of a prop." To counter such a setup, a scientist-debater should help set the ground rules. "Demand a very special set of topics and structure that forces the creationist to provide scientific support for creation, not argue why evolution is defective," advises House. "Make it clear that the debate is not to be structured so that creation wins by default by showing some 'difficulties' with the evolutionary explanation of nature." Failure to communicate characterizes many debates, because creationists and scientists do not speak the same language. "Creationists rely almost completely on memorizing rhetoric rather than data," maintains Stephens. He offers the example of the creationist challenge to transitional forms. "When confronted with the well-established data on Archaeopteryx, with some 48 reptile characteristics and only two bird characteristics, they do not discuss the data, but only restate their dogma that there are no transitional forms. This is like debating a tape recorder." ROCK-SOLID PROOF: University of Pennsylvania’s Alan Mann notes that "fossil evidence is overwhelming" when scientists debate creationists. Showing evidence can be more effective than describing it, reports Alan Mann, a professor of anthropology and curator of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. "I have an enormous advantage in that I can show actual fossils whose features cannot be found on any living creature," he says. "The fossil evidence is overwhelming, when described in the right way, which is to let the differences in jaws, teeth, skulls, and skeletons speak for themselves." Still, he fields questions about whether the fossils are real or whether they come from chimpanzees. Scientists should resist the urge to cram as much evidence as possible into the debate. "Don't waste time explaining the fine details of biology. The audience will not understand it," stresses Shanks. He recalls that "one very distinguished molecular biologist speaking before an audience packed with fundamentalists showed cytochrome c phylogeny. The audience didn't know cytochrome c from a hole in the ground, let alone what phylogeny means." SHOW THE EVIDENCE: Idaho State's Edwin House urges scientists to force creationists "to provide scientific support for creation, not argue why evolution is defective." Fetzer fell into the information-overload trap. "I pulled out beautiful, logically impeccable critiques of the classical creationist hypotheses, with charts depicting philosophical arguments. The less time I had, the faster I spoke." And he lost the audience. Present evidence that is not part of the well-rehearsed creationist agenda, Stephens suggests. "Recently I had a discussion with a biochemist creationist who was arguing that DNA and proteins don't normally 'get along,' and the fact that proteins are made from DNA is evidence of divine creation," he relates. So Stephens mentioned the homeodomain proteins, which regulate gene expression, about which his co-debater knew nothing. "A complete absence of knowledge of a huge field of data by someone who is supposed to be an expert can be embarrassing," he adds. A final word of advice is perhaps the most difficult to follow: Stay calm. "Never lose your cool and realize from the start that creationists will likely never change their minds," says Michael McKinney, an associate professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. He used the "calm and rational" approach in a debate broadcast on CNN and received many supportive letters. Answering students' queries about creationism, or debating a creationist, boils down not to arguing how life began and has changed, but to distinguishing between what is science and what is not. Concludes House: "Emphasize that the creationist movement is an attack on the integrity and process of science, which is a major threat to the progress science has given us for the last 100 years." Ricki Lewis, a freelance science writer based in Scotia, N.Y., is the author of several biology textbooks. She is online at 76715.3517@compuserve.com.

To Effectively Discuss Evolution, First Define 'Theory'

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of