When classes began at Faribault (Minnesota) High School in the fall of 1997, high school biology teacher Ken Hubert was looking forward to a productive year. However, early in 1998 Ken became concerned that a colleague — first-year biology teacher Rodney LeVake — was not teaching evolution as prescribed in the school’s curriculum. When Ken confronted Rod with his concerns, Ken learned that his concerns were justified–Rod told Ken, “I can’t teach evolution.”When Rod was later reassigned to a physical science class for refusing to follow the school’s curriculum, he filed a lawsuit that ended in early 2002 when the U.S. Supreme Court refused, without comment, to hear Rod’s case.

Ken found himself in a situation that a lot of teachers find themselves in. Ken did two things: First, he did the right thing (he confronted the problem) then, with a little luck and because right was on his side (which is never enough without the luck. Oh, and some lawyers….) he survived.Teachers, Ken spent four years getting dicked around by creationists so that you don’t have to.Ken’s award included a pile of books signed by the authors (like Genie Scott and such). He also got a standing ovation. (Well, Amanda and I, we leapt to our feet.)This is from Ken’s interview, and closely mirrors what he said in discussing his ordeal during a round table discussion held later in the day:

Lots of teachers at the high school told me that they supported what the school was doing; they were glad that we were going to fight Rod’s lawsuit. They understood that teachers shouldn’t be allowed to teach their own curriculum. Lots of people in the community supported us, but some didn’t. I’m sure there were teachers and other people who told Rod that they were happy he was suing the district. I remember getting one letter calling me a Nazi and claiming that the teaching of evolution is responsible for drugs, gangs, Satanism, and suicides. A parent asked me how I felt about Rod’s lawsuit. I told her that we were only trying to ensure that teachers taught science in our science classrooms. The parent responded by saying, “Well, we didn’t teach biology that way in 1850 and we don’t have to now.”

Makes sense to me. But staring in 1859 or so, well, that’s a different story….

More Posts on Evolution 2008

More Posts on Evolution 2008

Note: If you are interested in doing something about butterfly conservation, you can consider taking some of them in! Not into your house, but into your own butterfly garden. We have a fairly large one down the street run by the city, but you can do this in your own home even with very small space, and you can even build a “butterfly house.” See: The Ultimate Guide to Butterflies & How to Prevent Their Decline in DIY Garden.

OK, back to the point.

Decker went before Myers and gave an excellent Socratean presentation that utterly shocked the part of the audience that received his message. I am reluctant to actually report the details of what he said because it is about a conversation very much in process, but I can give you he gist.Imagine this scenario. You are teaching introductory evolutionary biology in college. A student in the class approaches you and says:”Professor … look, I’m a creationist. I don’t believe this evolution stuff because it is opposed to my religion. “Now, two thoughts occur to you. Two alternative responses, two alternative strategies. Here they are:Plan A: Tell the student… “OK, that’s fine, I totally understand and that’s your thing. But, this is a class on science. You know, a large number of scientists are actually religious. But science is about natural explanations or descriptions, not religious or supernatural explanations for things. So, when a scientist is working on her or his research, it is imperative to suspend religious ‘belief’ and act like an agnostic, at least for the time being. You need to do that in my class to really get the material. That is what I’m asking you to do.”Plan B: Do not attempt to tell the student that s/he needs to make any adjustment at all. You would be wrong to state or imply that the student should not give a religious belief priority or primacy over the material in the course. Do not ask the student to suspend a religious perspective while addressing the material (readings labs, etc.) in the course.Mark did the following: He took this question to a high authority at the University of Minnesota, and he also asked the members of the audience what they thought. At this biology conference.What do you think people said? I will not repeat it here but you are more than welcome to say what YOU would do!!!PZ Myer’s talk was equally radical. I’m not going to describe this in any detail, because I have a feeling that he will do so by an by on his blog. What I will tell you is this: PZ has redesigned the introductory biology course at his school in a very interesting way. When it comes to evolution, he teaches the controversy.PZ is in part leveraging the fact that the students all know his views because of his reputation and his well known blog. So this puts any creationoids on the defensive, so he starts off by getting them to relax in various way. The course starts with logic and philosophy, and spends a pretty large amount of time on this (including critical thinking, etc.) Maybe two weeks or so. Then he embraces a discussion of “the controversies” and has the students argue the various positions. (He did not give details here on the pedagogy.)In this way he positions himself as moderator rather than proponent of one position or another, and the students learn.I think it is a fantastic way to teach a college course. However, I must say that I was shocked at the fact that this critical question was NOT asked of PZ at the end of his talk: “How is this supposed to work in High School?”In a high school setting, there can be problems with “Teaching the Controversy” in this way or in any other way. For one thing, there is actually more required content in a high school class than in a college class, for various reasons, so spending a total of 25 percent of the class on “thinking” is not possible (though may be it should be). (PZ did acknowledge this problem.) In addition, if you have relatively immature HS students debating sensitive topics, things can go badly. “So what?” you say…Well, if things go badly in a high school class now and then, it may be no big deal in many cases. But if things go badly in a part of the class that is foundational to the rest of the class, as in this case, than one is in trouble. High school teachers tend to be conservative for a reason.However, I do think this approach can (and should) be adopted for either a Social Studies class or a cross-disciplinary elective in social studies and life science. Such an effort could lead to working out the kinks and refining the approach to adapt it to the high school context, and possibly to shape it into something that could be used in the biology class.I will try to make my next Evolution 2008 post on Dr. Tatiana’s sex advice.

More Posts on Evolution 2008

More Posts on Evolution 2008

More Posts on Evolution 2008