Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[jkfrost]

Yes, but evolution also teaches that cows will only give birth to cows and horses to horses. Changes occur very gradually, except in certain simple organisms like bacteria. Seems like a strawman to me.

it was meant to be a strawmonkey

[semlogo]

it was meant to be a strawmonkey

Well-played, sir!

[ThePhy]

...

As for intelligent design, the proof that the bacterial flagellum, to take one example, was designed by a higher intelligence is the fact that here we have a highly complex tail with multiple components, all of which must be there, that couldn't have been created piecemeal, i.e., in random, one-step-at-a-time fashion.

Really?

[Bee Eff]

it was meant to be a strawmonkey

It must have evolved.

[littlechild]

How does "after their kind" contradict evolution? Does evolution teach that a whale will literally give birth to a horse?

What about a less literal interpretation? How do you know it's literal? It doesn't sound fact-based. It sounds like a fable or a parable to me.

Evolution, at least Darwinian evolution that is taught as fact, teach that all species are descended from one common ancestor, one ancestral lifeform, and all of life is therefore genetically linked in Darwin's Tree of Life, from that one ancestral pair.

However, there is no consensus on what that tree looks like, and indeed, in every day use are multiple different and conflicting versions of that tree.

[Bee Eff]

You are still saying that "science" trumps God's word. That's fine, but just admit what you're doing.Gen is NOT allegorical, it is NOT symbolism - there is nothing in the text to justify those readings. When you take the alleged facts of science and require God's word to comply with those, then science becomes the final authority.

No, the Bible doesn't say God said this and suddenly magically creation happened. That is a possible interpretation, but not the only possible interpretation. It is also possible to interpret it stating something along the lines of, "God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life [that I may, through the process of evolution, create all other creatures],".

Genesis was an oral tradition until Moses, there is every reason to believe that Genesis is not to be believed as an absolute statement of literal fact. I haven't read in the Bible the verse where it states "Yea, and thus the creation account contained within the book of Genesis, it is NOT allegorical and is NOT symbolic." Please show me the verse that supports your claim.

God created the earth and everything therein. If God placed fossils there which He knew would lead man to assume evolution, He is a liar through misdirection. God is not a liar, given this, the fossil record shows evolution. God's creation witnesses of God, God used evolution. If God did not use evolution in some manner, there is a raised probability that God does not exist.

[Bee Eff]

I believe you are mistaken here. LDS beliefs do lead to a physical descent. When I have the time, I will look for a reference, until then if someone else has one feel free to post it.

I know many often discount the JoD, but I hesitate to do so when we have no revelation to the contrary. I believe the following is where I took the concept of Adam and Eve being physical children of God:

"The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870, emphasis added)

"So we are [the children of Adam and Eve], and [Adam and Eve] are the children of our Heavenly Father."

Also, given that Adam and Eve were born Celestially, they were not begotten as Christ was. Christ is the only begotten.

[littlechild]

God created the earth and everything therein. If God placed fossils there which He knew would lead man to assume evolution, He is a liar through misdirection. God is not a liar, given this, the fossil record shows evolution. God's creation witnesses of God, God used evolution. If God did not use evolution in some manner, there is a raised probability that God does not exist.

And your definition of evolution being what, exactly? Are you referring to Darwin's theory that life came from random, undirected, chance processes and events? The fossil record doesn't really support that, although you may have heard such. What fossil records there are support something else entirely. The Cambrian explosion of life shows entire genera being brought into existence at roughly the same time - this is opposite what the theory of evolution leads us to expect.

[semlogo]

Evolution, at least Darwinian evolution that is taught as fact, teach that all species are descended from one common ancestor, one ancestral lifeform, and all of life is therefore genetically linked in Darwin's Tree of Life, from that one ancestral pair.However, there is no consensus on what that tree looks like, and indeed, in every day use are multiple different and conflicting versions of that tree.

As it should be. When we learn new things, it is correct to revise our model, not stick with the old model because we like it better.

No, the Bible doesn't say God said this and suddenly magically creation happened. That is a possible interpretation, but not the only possible interpretation. It is also possible to interpret it stating something along the lines of, "God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life [that I may, through the process of evolution, create all other creatures],".Genesis was an oral tradition until Moses, there is every reason to believe that Genesis is not to be believed as an absolute statement of literal fact. I haven't read in the Bible the verse where it states "Yea, and thus the creation account contained within the book of Genesis, it is NOT allegorical and is NOT symbolic." Please show me the verse that supports your claim.God created the earth and everything therein. If God placed fossils there which He knew would lead man to assume evolution, He is a liar through misdirection. God is not a liar, given this, the fossil record shows evolution. God's creation witnesses of God, God used evolution. If God did not use evolution in some manner, there is a raised probability that God does not exist.

Well-said

And your definition of evolution being what, exactly? Are you referring to Darwin's theory that life came from random, undirected, chance processes and events? The fossil record doesn't really support that, although you may have heard such. What fossil records there are support something else entirely. The Cambrian explosion of life shows entire genera being brought into existence at roughly the same time - this is opposite what the theory of evolution leads us to expect.

www.theflatearthsociety.org/

[Bee Eff]

And your definition of evolution being what, exactly? Are you referring to Darwin's theory that life came from random, undirected, chance processes and events? The fossil record doesn't really support that, although you may have heard such. What fossil records there are support something else entirely. The Cambrian explosion of life shows entire genera being brought into existence at roughly the same time - this is opposite what the theory of evolution leads us to expect.

Darwin was wrong on many aspects of evolution, scientists since have modified and cleaned up what Darwin's initial theory had wrong. We have evidence of Man directing evolution (e.g. Farm-fox and the fruit fly experiments). The theory of evolution does not deny the possibility of direction, it only states a highly probable method by which organisms changed to best fit their environment.

The theory of evolution can accept the Cambrian period, and there are several theories to explain the "Cambrian explosion". One, many species became extinct shortly before the Cambrian period, thus leaving a gap where adaptation could occur more freely, without as much predation. Two, oxygen increase that occurred shortly prior to the Cambrian period could have made more evolution possible until the environment was basically "full". Three, evolution being random is not extremely predictable, given the theory of evolution sudden bursts here and there, or even once durin the Cambrian period are not expected but not beyond the scope of evolution. Four, you spoke of random evolution, I believe God created things, the Cambrian explosion could have been one of God's creative periods where he decided to "create" various creatures, a directed evolution would show periods of sudden evolution.

[littlechild]

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

If this next statement offends you , just take it as one of those random, undirected, chance remarks without any intelligence behind it:

I think that the real question should be: how do you reconcile evolution with reality? The evidence now at the microbiological level demonstrates absolutely zero ability to evolve anywhere through 'natural selection.' There is little real, tangible, physical evidence that anything evolved into or from anything else. Let them make whatever grandiose claims they will, the fact is, there is no one, anywhere, that can demonstrate that any species ever evolved into any other species. And lets keep it real and exclude finches getting larger beaks and peppered moths changing wing colors. The grand claims of evolution are that fish became men, and other more preposterous and equally unprovable conjectures.

[Bee Eff]

If this next statement offends you , just take it as one of those random, undirected, chance remarks without any intelligence behind it:

I think that the real question should be: how do you reconcile evolution with reality? The evidence now at the microbiological level demonstrates absolutely zero ability to evolve anywhere through 'natural selection.' There is little real, tangible, physical evidence that anything evolved into or from anything else. Let them make whatever grandiose claims they will, the fact is, there is no one, anywhere, that can demonstrate that any species ever evolved into any other species. And lets keep it real and exclude finches getting larger beaks and peppered moths changing wing colors. The grand claims of evolution are that fish became men, and other more preposterous and equally unprovable conjectures.

Any references to back up such a claim?

Evolution does not claim "that fish became men". That's like me claiming that a chunk of newly mined metal became a car. It is true, but that simple statement by itself is ludicrous. Not to mention that you forgot to mention monkeys.

[littlechild]

Darwin was wrong on many aspects of evolution, scientists since have modified and cleaned up what Darwin's initial theory had wrong. We have evidence of Man directing evolution (e.g. Farm-fox and the fruit fly experiments). The theory of evolution does not deny the possibility of direction, it only states a highly probable method by which organisms changed to best fit their environment.

The theory of evolution can accept the Cambrian period, and there are several theories to explain the "Cambrian explosion". One, many species became extinct shortly before the Cambrian period, thus leaving a gap where adaptation could occur more freely, without as much predation. Two, oxygen increase that occurred shortly prior to the Cambrian period could have made more evolution possible until the environment was basically "full". Three, evolution being random is not extremely predictable, given the theory of evolution sudden bursts here and there, or even once durin the Cambrian period are not expected but not beyond the scope of evolution. Four, you spoke of random evolution, I believe God created things, the Cambrian explosion could have been one of God's creative periods where he decided to "create" various creatures, a directed evolution would show periods of sudden evolution.

Sorry, we have to reject the fruit fly evolutionary experiments done, not by natural selection but in a laboratory. But that's not why we reject them. We reject them because they don't demonstrate a working evolution. The extra wings that fruit flies get through genetic modification are totally unusable and cause the fruit fly to live a shorter life. He is absolutely handicapped by the genetic modifications that are done and if this is an example of what evolution can do, then we would all have ceased to exist ages ago.

Your point number 3 is just begging the question. When darwinian theory is threatened, it simply claim that the evidence is at fault, not the theory. Now you are saying that because the Cambrian explosion counters what we expect to see by evolutionary theory, that it's "beyond the scope" of evolutionary theory. (personally I think most of reality is beyond the scope of Darwin's little theory, and Darwin himself felt that the Cambrian explosion could reasonably be used as an effective counterargument to his hypothesis.

And finally, directed evolution is your own idea, not Darwin's. I can't find a neo-Darwinist today who would admit that God used evolutionary methods, and if you can get them to buy off on that, I fully support you in your efforts.

[thesometimesaint]

Littlechild:

I would suggest you take a biology class at BYU then.

[semlogo]

If this next statement offends you , just take it as one of those random, undirected, chance remarks without any intelligence behind it:

I think that the real question should be: how do you reconcile evolution with reality? The evidence now at the microbiological level demonstrates absolutely zero ability to evolve anywhere through 'natural selection.' There is little real, tangible, physical evidence that anything evolved into or from anything else. Let them make whatever grandiose claims they will, the fact is, there is no one, anywhere, that can demonstrate that any species ever evolved into any other species. And lets keep it real and exclude finches getting larger beaks and peppered moths changing wing colors. The grand claims of evolution are that fish became men, and other more preposterous and equally unprovable conjectures.

Delicious irony.

[Bee Eff]

I thought the following would be a good article to add to this topic.

Blackwell, W., Powell, M., & Dukes, G. (2003, Spring2003). The problem of student acceptance of evolution. Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 58. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.

Introduction

The theory of evolution is rightly identified with English naturalist, Charles Darwin (1859), although Darwin was not the first biologist to propose evolutionary theories (Lamarck, 1809). The 'evolution debate,' in fact, preceded both Darwin and Lamarck (Eiseley, 1958; Bowler, 1989). And, much has been added to the doctrine since Darwin's expose, often under the label of 'Neo-Darwinism' (Minkoff, 1983). Although the group of postulates comprising this theory-complex is now much more expansive than set forth by Darwin, many people continue to use the expression 'Darwinism' synonymously with evolutionary theory. Indeed, the ideas and writings of Darwin still underpin this cluster of hypotheses, and Darwin's 'teachings' (or alleged teachings) continue to attract public attention, positive and negative, to evolution. As pointed out by Dennett (1995), 'almost no one is indifferent to Darwin.' Anti-Darwinian sentiments are expressed in current creationist writings (e.g. Creation Research Society, see Websites). Creationism, as a movement, is usually identified with the United States (Moore, 2000), although creationist beliefs are also common in other countries (e.g. Downie and Barron, 2000).

Questions arising from the pitting of evolutionary theory ('Darwinism') against creationism (or vice versa), as opposing explanations of the development of life on earth, are considered by some to have been answered before the close of the nineteenth century (Eldredge, 2001). The verdict among scientists, then and now, has gone in favour of evolution as a scientific explanation, since 'creationism' (even under the guise of 'creation science') is not science, but an extension of a fundamentalist religious belief. Part of the problem with the creationist approach has arisen from misuse of the Bible by some as a book of both religion and science, when the former is the main purpose for which it was intended (Moody, 1970). The 'science' of the Bible was cast in the context of the meagre scientific knowledge available in biblical times (Moody, 1970). The 'scientific' creationist's view (e.g. Morris and Whitcomb, 1961), which embellished upon geological theories of catastrophism (Price, 1926; Velikovsky, 1955), has little literal bearing on what actually took place during the earth's physical and biological history (Berra, 1990; Wise, 1998; Cherif et al., 2001; Eldredge, 2001). Wise (1998) illustrated how far short of the mark the creationist's timescale, is compared to the total geological history of the earth. Berra (1990) debunked a number of the better-known scientific creationist's arguments. Authors such as McMurtrie (2001) and Ruse (2001) have spent time recently weighing 'new' creationist's arguments (Johnson, 1993; Behe, 1996), which suggest that the concept of 'intelligent design' in the biological and biochemical world (and in the universe) should not be dismissed. Creationism indeed has a place in philosophy courses, examining a range of thought (including religion), but not in biology (or other science) courses. As Armstrong (1999) indicated, the 'pseudoscience' of creationism, unlike evolutionary theory, does not generate testable predictions in biological science.

The problem of acceptance of evolution

In spite of the unscientific nature of creation 'science,' and the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution (Storer et al., 1979; Minkoff, 1983; Young, 1992; Minkoff and Baker, 2001; Zimmer, 2001; Raven and Johnson, 2002), the creationist viewpoint remains entrenched, especially in the United States (Moore, 2000). Support for this view may even be on the increase (Gallup, 1982, 1993; Sinclair and Pendarvis, 1998; Matthews, 2001; Moore, 2001). At a minimum, such a deep division has continued between some who do not believe the tenets of evolution, and some of those who do, that the possibility of achieving compromise (even in understanding) can seem, at times, hopeless. The disparity in belief of the two 'factions' is evident in the secondary school and university settings. A rigidity of belief by teenagers and young adults is often explainable in the context of social and religious up-bringing. Regardless of cause, this powerful chasm in belief has surfaced in various forums, including school boards (Goodman, 1999; Thomas 2000), professional societies (Hull, 1988), and a number of court cases in the US (see partial listing in Eldredge, 2001). Some states, in statements of science standards, do not require use of the word 'evolution' in teaching biology courses (Moore, 2001). Certain other states present disclaimers in state-used biology texts to the effect that evolution is 'just a theory' (Goodman, 1999; Moore, 2002), implying that other interpretations of life's development on earth are just as plausible.

To regard evolution as 'just a theory' shows a misunderstanding of the nature of a scientific theory. An established scientific theory is not just an 'idea,' 'guess' (Sinclair and Pendarvis, 1998), or simple hypothesis, as is often in popular vernacular equated with 'theory.' Darwin's theory is a major construct, a multiple structure composed of related postulates -- resource limitation, struggle for existence, variation, adaptation, fitness, natural selection, branching descent, origin of species, extinction, etc. (Storer et al., 1979; Minkoff, 1983; Raven and Johnson, 2002) -- these postulates have not been substantively contradicted by fact (Minkoff and Baker, 2001), i.e. have not been credibly falsified. This is in contrast to explanations that are scientifically unstable, simpler and largely mythological in content (e.g. 'scientific creationism'), and which are readily exposed by the science philosopher's criterion of falsification (Popper, 1962; Smith, 1998). The theory of evolution is sufficiently bolstered such that it is composed of well-documented sub-theories (Morris, 2001). One such, natural selection (the cornerstone of Darwinian theory), is itself divided by some authors (e.g. Ehrlich and Holm, 1963) into scientifically demonstrated subcategories (namely directional, stabilising, and disruptive selection). Evolutionary theory is no 'house of cards'; it is built of sturdy parts, and will not fall (regardless of opinion). Evolution (in its entirety) continues to be considered 'a theory' because there are many components to it, and some details are being worked out, and information added. The mega-theory of evolution should be viewed as valid but 'unfinished' (Ayala, 1998), a 'work in progress.' As a well-founded complex of propositions, such a theory should be allowed growth and adjustment over time (Hodson, 1991).

With the advent of 'Neo-Darwinism' (see discussion in Minkoff, 1983; Ruse, 1988), i.e. what some have termed the 'evolutionary' or 'modern' synthesis (Dobzhansky, 1937; Huxley, 1942; Mayr and Provine, 1998; Zimmer, 2001), has come new information about evolution (as from study of molecular evolution, e.g. Li and Graur, 1991). The 'gradualistic' evolutionary theory of Darwin, based on long-range action of environmental selection upon variation, is still the foundation of evolution. As stated by Lennox (1992), 'the principle of natural selection remains the essential core of evolutionary explanation'. However, added to Darwinism have been such significant evolutionary (not necessarily Darwinian) phenomena as punctuated equilibrium and saltatory speciation (Eldredge and Gould, 1972; Dennett, 1995; Eldredge, 1999); cytocatalytic evolution in plants (Lewis, 1967); and, evolution through cellular, endosymbiotic events (Margulis, 1993; Blackwell and Powell, 1995). Evolutionary theory has been, although controversially, extended to 'sociobiology' (Hull, 1988; Sober, 2000; Wilson, 2000).

To regard the theory of evolution as 'just a theory' also fails to address the fact that this complex concept has been more influential in organising biological information and thought than any other theory (Minkoff and Baker, 2001). Evolution is of such significance as to be considered 'the most powerful theory within the field of biology' (Rutledge and Warden, 2000). It is imperative to scientific literacy that the best factual and theoretical information available is presented, including the relevance of the topic of evolution to explanation of the diversity of life (AAAS Project 2061, 1993). The National Academy of Sciences, USA (1998) encouraged teachers 'to use evolution as the organising theme in teaching biology' (Alles, 2001). The National Research Council (1996), under 'unifying concepts and processes,' emphasised the importance of evolutionary theory in explaining both form and function of organisms. A strong statement endorsing the teaching of evolution was issued in 1997 by the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT); see Websites. Nonetheless, a text deficiency (in the US) in the use of evolution as an organising principle has been identified (Bradley, 2001), although the extent to which this is true has been challenged (Flammer, 2001). Some secondary school biology teachers, despite court rulings to the contrary, continue to teach creationism (Moore, 2002).

Why do we have a problem of acceptance of evolution?

What is it about evolutionary theory that makes it such a sensitive issue compared with other scientific theories, e.g. atomic theory, quantum theory, cell theory? The answer often relates to a literal acceptance of the creation account set forth in the Bible's Old Testament book of Genesis, and to the fact that this acceptance runs to the core of a person's religious belief system (involving perceptions and fears concerning morality, human behaviour in general, views of 'man' in God's image, and mortality and hope of salvation). Some religious conservatives associated with the creationist movement entertain the spurious notion that the teaching of evolution is somehow associated with a decline of moral values in society (Eger, 1991). Philosophers, however, have not necessarily considered the study of evolution inimical to idealism (Royce, 1892; White, 1972). A proper understanding of evolution (including appreciation of the potential value of every species in the environment) should, to the contrary, enhance ethical purposes. Dobzhansky (1973) noted a less noble, more political motive lurking amid the creation movement that, 'some people fear enlightenment, because enlightenment threatens their vested interests,' a point that we commend to further thought but not to further explanation here. Whatever the reason, or agenda, of people associated with the creationist movement, surely by now the vast majority of people understand, with all the knowledge and public education available on, for example, biology, molecular genetics, ecology, stratigraphy and paleontology, that evolution (or something like it) must have occurred, and that the earth is so very much older than, say, 6000 - 10 000 years (Wise, 1998). Well, perhaps, or perhaps not! Moore (2001) cited references to indicate that possibly half of all Americans above the age of 18 reject evolution as a valid concept.

Many factors contribute to a lack of student (and public) understanding, and acceptance, of evolution. One factor, not apparent at first, has been that we who are (or have been) college professors have not in some cases played the role that we should have in promoting the significance of evolution in science (National Center for Science Education, '25 ways to promote science education,' see Websites; National Research Council, 1996; Aguillard, 1999; and Eldredge, 2001). A connection between college teachers and high school students is usually an indirect one; we usually don't teach these students directly, as this is generally the provenance of secondary school teachers. It is certainly true that complacency exists among some college professors of biology in the way they present (or don't present) information on evolution in their classes. And, these classes often contain high numbers of schoolteachers and/or students studying to be teachers. Since professors teach the secondary school teachers, whatever happens (or fails to happen) in the college classroom stands a good chance of being translated to the high school setting. We, as college and university teachers, in many cases have apparently failed to keep carrying forward the torch of evolution. In example, Moore (2002) discussed the point that high school teachers in certain states (e.g. Louisiana) don't recall hearing the word evolution in college biology courses. A significant percentage of teachers in various states still support the teaching of creationism (Moore, 2001). Related to such points, Berra (1990) had earlier discussed a potentially significant problem in the training of high school teachers, particularly in understanding the basic facts and ideas of evolution. Recent surveys of Indiana high school biology teachers (Rutledge and Warden, 2000; Rutledge and Mitchell, 2002) indicated that a majority had not received any special training in evolution; a smaller but significant percentage had a problem with the acceptance of evolution, and an associated problem of proper understanding of the content of evolutionary theory. The AAAS Project 2061 (1998) stated that teaching content (scientific knowledge and subject matter), not just general or generic teaching competency, needs greater attention; and that science (and science education) majors in college 'often have serious deficiencies in fundamental ideas of science' (such ideas of course would include the theory of evolution). One conclusion of Project 2061 is that university professors in general (not just professors of education) need to become more involved in teacher preparation.

The sense of indifference (in universities and elsewhere) toward presenting evidence for evolution has been around for a while. The renowned naturalist and evolutionist, Marston Bates, stated 'I think there is little need to review again the evidence that life as we see it is the result of some evolutionary process' (Bates, 1950). It is probable, however, that scientists often have not been perceived by others to have such a laissez faire attitude towards disseminating information on evolution. There have, in fact, been those who asserted that scientists and teachers of science were much too dogmatic and authoritarian in presenting material on and imposing their views of evolution (e.g. Gish, 1973). Inadequate transmission of information on evolution that has often occurred in the college and university classroom does not, however, support such an assertion. Why does this 'complacency' in the teaching of evolution in colleges and universities exist? Perhaps the explanation, at least in the US, is as follows: Along with being 'liberated' by the US Supreme Court in 1987, during the case of Edwards v Aguillard (Aguillard, 1999), to teach evolution unencumbered by any mandate to present a counter viewpoint (i.e. 'creation science'), has come a certain insouciance. In discussions with some professors, this apparent apathy seems to involve a perception that the evolution battle has already been won, and/or a view that it is not worth stirring up trouble in class with such a controversial topic (see also Moore, 2001). In either case, a number of professors often teach facts relating to evolution, such as morphological relationships of one animal phylum to another, without actually using the term 'evolution' (McMurtrie, 2001), and without making it clear that the principles of evolution underlie such teachings. We have heard statements to the effect of, 'biology is biology, with or without evolution; so, why set yourself up for abuse by trying to seriously present evolution in class to students with varied backgrounds and beliefs?'. To this point we emphatically state that biology is definitely not just biology without evolutionary theory. To strip biological instruction of evolution is to excise its central, unifying theme (Minkoff and Baker, 2001). It is (for us) hard to imagine presenting a course on animal diversity (covering the various phyla) without strongly invoking evolutionary relationships, and making it clear that phylogeny is being discussed. Dobzhansky (1973) stated that, 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.' Though overstated (see Sober, 2000), Dobzhansky's point is nonetheless a good one. Without evolutionary theory, biology is divested of needed theme, coherence, understanding, and interpretation of relationship.

How might we solve the problem of acceptance of evolution?

There are no definite answers here. As Moore (2002) discussed, simply upgrading statements regarding evolution in state teaching standards is not by itself enough. Given the meagre success that the teaching of evolution has apparently had (Aguillard, 1999; Moore, 2001), a renewed effort is in order. If we, as teachers, have often not been convincing with our teaching of evolution, what approach might improve the situation? One approach would be to further investigate the 'why' or 'belief' questions (Mayr, 1961; Shellberg, 2001), in addition to the 'what' and 'how,' i.e. purely fact-based, information. In other words, the problem could be approached in terms of belief acquisition (Bird, 1998) or, as we might suggest, belief expansion. We need to develop the initial experience of the teaching of evolution for students in such a way that they can readily identify with and incorporate this information, not only in terms of what they have previously been taught, but with what they already believe or are prepared to believe.

Understanding and belief are, of course, not the same thing (Singer, 1999). A person may understand a topic (evolution, for example) without significant incorporation into his/her belief We need therefore to bring the two mental processes together in the classroom. Downie and Barron (2000) noted the connection between belief and the learning and acceptance of information. Belief can be so powerful that it modifies perception of objective phenomena (Kordig, 1971). If we can thus, somehow, intercalate ideas of evolution naturally into the student's own belief system, we will stand a better chance of gaining student appreciation, and eventual acceptance, of evolutionary theory. To be effective, this should be done simply, clearly, and without perceived threat to belief (to prevent immediate dismissal by the student). Matthews (2001) advocated the use of 'creation stories,' in teaching evolution, as a means of altering student attitudes favourably towards evolutionary theory. However, the approach of Matthews, though interesting, is controversial, and has received mixed reviews (Hazard, 2001; Munger, 2001). It is not clear that the statistics cited by Matthews (pre-test versus two post-test calculations) documented a substantial change in student attitude. It is our view that a significant change in acceptance, in the case of something as potentially emotionally deep-seated as the topic of evolution, is probably not reliably measured in a short time frame (e.g. during a course); this view would appear to be supported by studies such as those of Sinclair and Pendarvis (1998). Rather, it would seem reasonable to attempt to develop ideas (some already in the minds of students) that could result in a more 'internalised' understanding of evolution. It is, we believe, a personalised understanding of the theory of evolution that is most likely to lead to long-term acceptance, i.e. as the student might continue to think about this theory over the years.

Winterer (2001) presented a lab exercise for the purpose of 'explaining Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and evolution effectively'. While Winterer's proposal is useful for understanding the Hardy-Weinberg gene frequency (change) equation (using, necessarily, a very limited number of alleles), it is doubtful that this exercise would result in a broad-based comprehension of evolution. A study by Sinclair and Pendarvis (1998) indicated that students were less impressed (in considerations of evolution) with molecular and genetic data than with material, e.g. fossils, they could readily observe directly. Also, unexpected (perhaps environmental) changes in genotypic composition of small animal or plant populations ('genetic drift') can void predictions based on Hardy-Weinberg equilibria (Ehrlich and Holm, 1963). As indicated by Gould (1982), environmental selection acts on genotypes, usually indirectly, through phenotypes. Phenotypes usually occur as members of populations or species (Barton and Partridge, 2000), and are the product of many genes, gene recombinations and interactions, occasional mutations, and the complexities of ontogenetic development. The Mendelian model of heredity (involving but a few gene pairs) is stochastic (probabilistic), i.e. without precisely predetermined outcomes (Giere, 1984). Models of evolution, as a whole, involving many (and many kinds of) factors, and the entire organism, would be yet more stochastic. A holistic approach (based on experience) perhaps offers the best opportunity for most people to relate initially to the topic of evolution.

We propose, as an introduction to evolution for students in introductory biology (college or secondary school), a brief 'evolution test' (not necessarily divulged as such to students). The purpose of this questionnaire is to initiate a personally meaningful consideration of evolution, and to augment a student's existing belief system concerning biological science. This 'test' can be, as we present, a limited series of 'objective' questions about particular life experiences. These questions are best posed such that they are of interest to students, and non-threatening to their beliefs. The questions should not have 'correct' answers (as in Rutledge and Warden, 2000), but should ask what the students think or believe about a given question. Musante (1999) raised the point that evolutionary theory (being factually based) is not something to 'believe,' but should simply be understood as good science (the best scientific explanation of life's diversity). We agree. However, evolution unfortunately remains a topic that will often require penetration into an individual's belief system prior to acceptance. Cherif et al. (2001) distinguished, in class exercises, between 'I believe' and 'I think' responses to questions. Though a valid distinction, nuances of meaning seem better left to more advanced considerations of evolution.

The 'evolution test' (see Appendix) should be clear, user-friendly and formulated on information to which the students can relate, and even enjoy. Marbach-Ad (2001) indicated that students most readily relate to material at a level familiar to them. Bischoff and Anderson (2001) stated that, 'constructivist theory of teaching and learning emphasises the significance of the individual learner's previous knowledge'. Bradley (2001) suggested the efficacy of connecting the topic of evolution to 'everyday observations'. Most students have experience with and fondness for dogs and breeds of dogs. For this reason, and because discussion of evolution of dogs and dog breeds is available in popular books (e.g. Caras, 1996), articles (e.g. Lange, 2002) and in biology texts (e.g. Raven and Johnson, 2002), we developed a questionnaire based mainly on differences among dogs. Each question is intended to ask, 'What do you believe in this case?' In part C, the student is encouraged to apply questions from the 'canine test' (part A) to principles of evolutionary theory (part B ). Interpretation of responses, in light of information on evolution, can be discussed with students as appropriate. The extent to which the answering of parts A and C influences the answering of part D may be of particular interest.

Results

For the purposes of this study, the questionnaire was completed by 74 General Studies (Freshman Seminar) students and 51 General Biology students, Academic Year 2001 - 2002, at the University of Alabama. The number of responses per question varied from 64 to 74 in the General Studies group (see Table 1) and from 48 to 51 in the General Biology group (see Table 2).

The outcome of the 'test taking' in these two groups of students was quite similar. This was somewhat surprising, given a slight difference in clientele, e.g. there were fewer freshmen and more biology majors in General Biology than in the General Studies Seminar. Since quite similar percentage totals on key questions (e.g. questions 21, 24 - 25) were obtained in the two classes, these classes may be discussed together. In both of these sample runs, a strong connection is evident between the perception of content of the canine test, Part A, questions 1 - 10 (information dealing with dog breeds and related matters), and part B, principles of evolution. This is reflected in the answers for part C (questions 11 - 20), in which information sets from parts A and B were mutually applied. The overwhelming majority of students in both classes selected appropriate answers in part C -- although students were asked to select just one answer for each of questions 11 - 20, more than one applicable answer was, of course, often possible. Thus, most students were able to effectively apply information with which they were familiar, or at least with which they gained familiarity during the exam, to the thought questions posed concerning evolution. This ability to understand connections and to apply information concerning evolution is also evident in the answering of question 21 (part D). If we combine answers a and b for question 21, i.e. those students perceiving several connections between the canine test and principles of evolution, the total from General Studies Seminar is 92.2%, and from General Biology is 93.8 %.

The ability to comprehend and apply evolutionary information was not, however, mirrored by a similar degree of personal acceptance of evolution; one need only look at the answers to questions 23 and 24 to realise this. The percentages of students answering 23a (considering evolution the primary basis for the progression of life on earth) were respectively, in General Studies Seminar and General Biology, 34.4% and 35.4%. The respective percentages for 24a (considering evolution compatible with belief system) were 26.6% and 29.2%. There is, thus, an obvious gap between understanding and application of information on evolution ( 21), and a strong acceptance of evolution ( 23, 24). This outcome is consistent with other studies in which students, who did not necessarily believe in evolution, could nonetheless pass exams on evolution (McKeachie et al., 2002; the sample size of McKeachie et al., however, was small, the conclusions being based mainly on three 'creationist' students who remained in a community college biology class in which evolution was taught). The hope of biology teachers interested in promoting knowledge of evolution is that, regardless of initial negative student views of evolution, there is the possibility that acceptance may develop in the future. We believe that our study addresses this issue.

Our test results illustrate two main points. First, the ability to successfully answer part C, and to perceive connections, D (question 21), in our test shows an understanding of principles of evolution. Second, if all percentages for answers in questions 22 - 25 are considered, most students, though cautious, could be interpreted to have at least a degree of openness to the topic of the theory of evolution (supported also by student comments). Only 9.4% and 6.3% respectively in the two classes indicated that they could never believe in evolution (24e). It can therefore be deduced that a willingness to at least consider the theory of evolution as having some sort of validity was found in this study to be at the 90% level or greater. It would appear feasible that a measure of acceptance of evolution (or even total acceptance), if not present already, could develop over time in the minds of a substantial majority of students. These results should, we believe, be encouraging to teachers of biology. It then becomes a matter of fostering continued considerations of evolution in later courses, or perhaps in future continuing education formats.

Conclusion

When anyone, scientist or non-scientist, approaches matters of science, their approach is in the context of pre-existing mental constructs, i.e. an individual's philosophical background and assumptions (Kantor, 1953). One goal of any biology teacher should be to attempt to infuse, into existing backgrounds, an understanding of and openness to consider evolutionary theory. The expression 'evolution' has multiple meanings (LaBar, 1999). Evolution is defined in Webster's International Unabridged Dictionary as: 'A series of related changes in a certain direction: process of change: organic development.' As stated by Sober (2000), 'evolution means change.' Extrapolating from Sober, if one believes in change (in almost anything), and a certain process of change, then he/she believes, to an extent, in evolution. However, this definition of evolution is, of course, far too simplistic for a proper appreciation of the complexity of biological evolution, in which new biological forms can make their appearance. Nonetheless, it illustrates that an 'acceptance' of evolution can exist at different levels or in different degrees.

It is of course the question of the origin of humans that is the source of the most conflict when considering evolution. Related to this conflict is the vanity of the conception that we are somehow God-like, or closer to God than other animals, i.e. that we humans are 'special creations.' As has been discussed, it is this creationist view that has played most emotionally against a naturalistic origin of humans through evolution, in which the invocation of deities is not necessary. As Ehrlich and Holm (1963) pointed out, one of the problems associated with attempted objective considerations of evolutionary theory is the strong anthropocentric bias often present in such discussions. A further complication in casting human origin into initial discussions of evolution is that human biological evolution follows the Darwinian paradigm, but human cultural evolution (including the development of science and technology) is more Lamarckian in character (Fetzer, 1993). Darwin, however, in his Origin of Species (1859) had, intentionally, essentially nothing to say about the origin of humans. T H Huxley added information on human paleontology and evolution in 1863. After Huxley paved the way towards acceptance of human evolution -- a path involving a common ancestry with the great apes -- Darwin (1871) eventually wrote about 'man's' place in nature (see Young, 1992). Thus, what one believes about the appearance of humans on earth (whether by evolution or through Adam and Eve) is not necessarily at stake in accepting basic Darwinian principles (as set forth in 1859, and as listed in the questionnaire, Part B ). As indicated by Sinclair and Pendarvis (1998), it is important for teachers to consider an approach to evolution that does not require students in their perceptions to make a choice between acceptance of this theory and their religious beliefs.

A cogent point made by van Fraassen (1979) is that one may 'accept' (in terms of cold logic) a theory as 'empirically adequate' (as fitting the facts) without necessarily jeopardising one's particular belief system (see also Fetzer, 1993). The pragmatist, and instrumentalist, philosophers (and educators), James (1907) and Dewey (1910), utilised a practical approach to theories, laws, and the search for 'truth.' Their utilitarian outlook permitted acceptance of the theory of evolution as true (and significant to philosophy) simply because 'it worked' (fit the data and had explanatory power). James and Dewey viewed the theory of evolution as an instrument, intellectually solvable to real world situations and observations (including flux or change). The purpose of a theory, thus, can be regarded as no more than that of offering an explanation to a set of phenomena (Hodson, 1991). Warburton (1999) astutely observed that it is in fact the process of evolution that has led the development of the human brain to the capability of making successful inductive generalisations, such as the theory of evolution.

In addition to the different ways in which one may relate to evolutionary theory, it should also be noted that acceptance of a part of evolutionary theory is possible, even reasonable, without acceptance of the entire doctrine. As Downie and Barron (2000) discussed, some students seemed to have little or no problem with evolution as a viable process operating within species (microevolution). However, students often did have a problem when it came to the evolution of species or larger groups (macroevolution). And, of course, the evolution of humans, in particular, is often a sticking point. However, it is quite feasible, as mentioned, to accept evolutionary theory, with or without discussion of events in the evolution of Homo sapiens, although a degree of completeness would obviously be lacking. It is our opinion that any measure of acceptance of evolutionary theory, or acceptance of any part of it (see part D of the questionnaire, questions 22 - 25), by a student formerly hostile to or distrustful of the topic, would represent meaningful progress as regards the student's future openness to considerations of thematic biology, and evolution in particular. As indicated by Quine (1961), modifications in acceptance of facts or theories may require only a minor adjustment in a person's belief system.

Edit: Changed " " to "B )"

[thesometimesaint]

I guess I'd better throw out my microbiology books. Because they explain how microorganisms Evolve to acquire immunity.

[littlechild]

Any references to back up such a claim?

Evolution does not claim "that fish became men". That's like me claiming that a chunk of newly mined metal became a car. It is true, but that simple statement by itself is ludicrous. Not to mention that you forgot to mention monkeys.

Common ancestry is an ancient idea, articulated by many pagan philosophers throughout history. In Europe, it fell from prominence when Christianity was dominant, but regained popularity in the 19th century, with secularization. It is an ancient idea, held by ancient pagan philosophers such as Anaximander as early as the 7th century BC, and returning to popularity in 19th century Europe.

* Plutarch, Symposiacs, Book viii, question viii: Anaximander founded the first school of Greek philosophy and lived circa 610-546 BC.

â?? Anaximander says that fish and men were not produced in the same substances, but that men were first produced in fishes, and, when they were grown up and able to help themselves, were thrown out, and so lived upon the land. Therefore, as the fire devours its parents, that is, the matter out of which it was first kindled, so Anaximander, asserting that fish were our common parents, condemneth our feeding on them.

[Bee Eff]

Common ancestry is an ancient idea, articulated by many pagan philosophers throughout history. In Europe, it fell from prominence when Christianity was dominant, but regained popularity in the 19th century, with secularization. It is an ancient idea, held by ancient pagan philosophers such as Anaximander as early as the 7th century BC, and returning to popularity in 19th century Europe.

* Plutarch, Symposiacs, Book viii, question viii: Anaximander founded the first school of Greek philosophy and lived circa 610-546 BC.

â?? Anaximander says that fish and men were not produced in the same substances, but that men were first produced in fishes, and, when they were grown up and able to help themselves, were thrown out, and so lived upon the land. Therefore, as the fire devours its parents, that is, the matter out of which it was first kindled, so Anaximander, asserting that fish were our common parents, condemneth our feeding on them.

Clarification of my post.

What I requested reference for:

The evidence now at the microbiological level demonstrates absolutely zero ability to evolve anywhere through 'natural selection.'

[littlechild]

Littlechild:

I would suggest you take a biology class at BYU then.

Why do you assume a BYU biology class is immune to the same errors found rampant in other colleges with regard to this topic? I've read the blogs of a BYU evolution teacher. He is as misinformed as all the other groupthink evolutionists. I have another textbook I'd like to recommend: Exploring Evolution. It corrects some of the errors found in Futuyma and others. There are actually solid, scientifically grounded reasons to reject neo-Darwinist claims, and those are spelled out in Exploring Evolution, and in Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells.

[Bee Eff]

Why do you assume a BYU biology class is immune to the same errors found rampant in other colleges with regard to this topic? I've read the blogs of a BYU evolution teacher. He is as misinformed as all the other groupthink evolutionists. I have another textbook I'd like to recommend: Exploring Evolution. It corrects some of the errors found in Futuyma and others. There are actually solid, scientifically grounded reasons to reject neo-Darwinist claims, and those are spelled out in Exploring Evolution, and in Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells.

An ID text?

I did a quick search on EBSCOhost for "intelligent design". The only articles that came up were from religious or social science journals. There were zero results in biological journals or any biology related journals.

[littlechild]

Clarification of my post.

What I requested reference for:

http://www.discovery.org/v/341

This link takes you to an audio presentation by Dr. Seelke, discussing his work with bacteria and evolution.

or google on

Ralph Seelke, what can evolution really do?

to find a document which explains it in text form.

[Bee Eff]

http://www.discovery.org/v/341

This link takes you to an audio presentation by Dr. Seelke, discussing his work with bacteria and evolution.

or google on

Ralph Seelke, what can evolution really do?

to find a document which explains it in text form.

discovery.org is a religious website that tries to hide that it is a religious website. Please provide a citation from a biological journal, or at least a site without bias, that supports your claim.

Seelke doesn't have a paper on his bio that was published in a Biology journal.

[littlechild]

An ID text?

I did a quick search on EBSCOhost for "intelligent design". The only articles that came up were from religious or social science journals. There were zero results in biological journals or any biology related journals.

Yes, an ID text. Why do you assume bias on the part of research originating with ID, and yet assume no bias in biological journals? This is an interesting dilemma. In my experience, you can't impugn the source until you understand what they are saying and why they are saying it. Inevitably, it doesn't matter the skin color of the defendant, but the strength of his alibi.

I find ID much more compelling, and science based, than a naturalist philosophy masquerading as an "objective scientific endeavor". Which is what neo-Darwinism amounts to.

Neo-Darwinists don't need to insult the integrity of their detractors by looking down their snooty noses at ID. Ultimately this is a battle of ideas and facts, and a measure of educating people to look for the truth of the matter, before believing in the claims of the vested interests.

You have to admit, there are lots of research dollars at stake for the pro-Darwin crowd. If they can sling mud at their detractors long enough to obscure the fact that they have no real scientific proof of their claims, they stand to benefit from the money flowing into the universities to prop up their faltering theories.

[J.S. Mill]

And why do you think people are giving money to them, when their science is so bad as to not be useful? How many ID "researchers" are getting grants to study epidemiology? None, because none of their conclusions could possibly be helpful to the medical community.