Abstract
The theory of evolution is a central component of biology. Yet, a 2014 Gallup survey revealed that 42% of Americans reject evolution entirely and, instead, believe that humans were created in their present form approximately 10,000 years ago. While there are many reasons that people reject the theory of evolution, we argue that a misunderstanding of nature of science (NOS) and science in general plays a big part. In this chapter, two science educators present their experiences with evolution in the South. The first section, written by Ian Binns, focuses on how the controversy over evolution education in the South informed how he teaches his science methods courses. The second section, written by Mark Bloom, describes how he incorporates NOS into his teaching when addressing evolution in conservative classrooms in the South to successfully mitigate the tension that many students experience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Cary Funk and Lee Rainie, “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society,” Pew Research Center, last modified January 29, 2015, http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
- 2.
Frank Newport, “In U.S., 42% believe Creationist View of Human Origins,” Gallup, last modified June 2, 2014, http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
- 3.
B. Elijah Carter and Jason R. Wiles, “Scientific Consensus and Social Controversy: Exploring Relationships between Students’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science, Biological Evolution, and Global Climate Change,” Evolution: Education and Outreach, 7 no. 6 (2014): accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/6; Amanda L. Glaze and M. Jenice Goldston, “U.S. Science Teaching and Learning of Evolution: A Critical Review of the Literature 2000–2014,” Science Education 99, no. 3 (2015); Tania Lombrozo, Anastasia Thanukos, and Michael Weisberg, “The Importance of Understanding the Nature of Science for Accepting Evolution,” Evolution: Education and Outreach 1, no. 3 (2008); Gale M. Sinatra, et al., “Intentions and Beliefs in Students’ Understanding and Acceptance of Biological Evolution” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40, no. 5 (2003).
- 4.
Norman G. Lederman, “Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future,” In Handbook of Research on Science Education, eds. Sandra K. Abell and Norman G. Lederman (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 2007).
- 5.
National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, Science, Evolution, and Creationism (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2008), 10.
- 6.
University of California Museum of Paleontology, “Understanding Science,” Understanding Science, accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.understandingscience.org
- 7.
Ibid.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Harry M. Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know About Science (2nd ed.) (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
- 10.
Eugenie Samuel Reich, “Speedy Neutrinos Challenge Physicists,” Nature 477, no. 7366 (2011).
- 11.
Collins and Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know About Science.
- 12.
Eugenie Samuel Reich, “Timing Glitches Dog Neutrino Claim,” Nature 483, no. 7387 (2012).
- 13.
Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (2nd ed.) (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2009).
- 14.
Ian C. Binns, “Academic Freedom Legislation: The Latest Effort to Undermine the Integrity of Science and Science Education,” Journal of Science Teacher Education 24 (2013); Glenn Branch, Eugenie C. Scott, and Josh Rosenau, “Dispatches from the Evolution Wars: Shifting Tactics and Expanding Battlefields,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 11 (2010); Barbara Forrest, “Analysis of SB 733: ‘LA Science Education Act.’” Louisiana Coalition for Science, last modified June 5, 2008, http://lasciencecoalition.org/2008/05/22/sb_733_analysis/; Nicholas J. Matzke, “The Evolution of Antievolution Policies after Kitzmiller v. Dover,” Science 351, no. 6268 (2015).
- 15.
Binns, “Academic Freedom Legislation: The Latest Effort to Undermine the Integrity of Science and Science Education.”
- 16.
Matzke, “The Evolution of Antievolution Policies after Kitzmiller v. Dover.”
- 17.
Binns, “Academic Freedom Legislation: The Latest Effort to Undermine the Integrity of Science and Science Education”; Branch, Scott, and Rosenau, “Dispatches from the Evolution Wars: Shifting Tactics and Expanding Battlefields”; Forrest, “Analysis of SB 733: ‘LA Science Education Act’”; Barbara Forrest, “It’s De´ja` vu All Over Again: The Intelligent Design Movement’s Recycling of Creationist Strategies,” Evolution: Education and Outreach 3, no. 2 (2010); Matzke, “The Evolution of Antievolution Policies after Kitzmiller v. Dover.”
- 18.
Ian C. Binns, “Battle over Science in Louisiana,” Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 31 no. 6. (2011); accessed June 1, 2016, http://reports.ncse.com/
- 19.
UCMP, “Understanding Science.”
- 20.
Binns, “Battle over Science in Louisiana.”
- 21.
Carol E. Cleland, “Historical Science, Experimental Science, and the Scientific Method,” Geology, 29 no. 11 (2001); Josh Rosenau, “‘Historical Science’ vs. ‘Experimental Science,’” National Center for Science Education, last modified Sept. 24, 2008, http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vs-experimental-science
- 22.
Roger Patterson, “What is Science?,” Evolution Exposed: Biology, last modified July 29, 2014, http://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/what-is-science
- 23.
Janice Swab, “History of the Evolution/Creationism Controversy in North Carolina,” (presentation, Annual Meeting of the North Carolina Science Teachers Association, Winston-Salem, NC, November 8–9, 2012); Chris Toumey, “Teaching of Evolution,” in The Encyclopedia of North Carolina, ed. William S. Powell (Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press, 2006).
- 24.
Toumey, “Teaching of Evolution.”
- 25.
Swab, “History of the Evolution/Creationism Controversy in North Carolina.”
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
Andrew Dunn, “Brunswick Schools’ Creationism Debate Resurfaces,” StarNews Online (Wilmington, NC), Sept. 13, 2011; Ana Ribeiro, “Brunswick School Board to Consider Creationism Teaching,” StarNews Online (Wilmington, NC), Sept. 16, 2008.
- 28.
Ibid.
- 29.
Ana Ribeiro, “Debate Erupts over Proposal to Teach Creationism in Brunswick Schools,” StarNews Online (Wilmington, NC), Sept. 29, 2008.
- 30.
T. Keung Hui and Thomas Goldsmith, “Wake County Science Teacher Told to Stop Teaching about Creationism,” News & Observer (Raleigh, NC), April 20, 2012.
- 31.
Ibid.
- 32.
Brian J. Alters, “Whose Nature of Science,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34, no. 1 (1997).
- 33.
Lederman, “Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future”; William F. McComas, Michael P. Clough, and Hiya Almazroa, “The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education,” in The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, ed. William F. McComas (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998); UCMP, “Understanding Science.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Binns, I., Bloom, M. (2017). Using Nature of Science to Mitigate Tension in Teaching Evolution. In: Lynn, C., Glaze, A., Evans, W., Reed, L. (eds) Evolution Education in the American South. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95139-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95139-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-95138-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95139-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)