Teaching Evolution to Students with Compromised Backgrounds & Lack of Confidence About Evolution - Is it Possible?

Alexandria Schauer - Minnesota

V:50 I:4 Cases/Abstracts Honorable Mention

Click Here for the full paper:

Teaching Evolution to Students with Compromised Backgrounds & Lack of Confidence About Evolution - Is it Possible?

Abstract:

Students regard evolutionary theory differently than science in general. Students’ reported confidence in their ability to understand science in general (e.g., posing scientific questions, interpreting tables and graphs, and understanding the content of their biology course) significantly outweighed their confidence in understanding evolution. We also show that those students with little incoming confidence in their understanding of evolution demonstrated more confidence and the most improved performance by the end of the semester. Collectively, our data indicate that regardless of prior experiences with evolution education, and in spite of myriad social challenges to teaching evolution, students can learn evolution. 

Comments

[Dr. Arv Edgeworth]

What an eye is, what it does, and how we treat it for disease is real science. How we got an eye and why should only be discussed in a philosophy class regarding worldviews. It would be better for all concerned if we just got back to teaching real science in science classes. Humanistic naturalism is a philosophical worldview and nothing else. All you have indicated is that students can be indoctrinated in a certain philosophical worldview over time. It is too bad they aren't being taught to understand the difference between humanistic naturalism and real science.

[Anonymous]

Evolution is real science, and nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Learning the evolutionary history of the eye is incredibly important for understanding what it does, comparative anatomy between species, how it can malfunction, and how we treat it.

[Dr. Arv Edgeworth]

The more you study the human eye the more complexity it reveals. If someone had not been brainwashed by the lie of evolution they would clearly recognize design features. If it started as an irritation on the skin would it give an advantage over no irritation on the skin? Which came first the amazingly complex human eye, the amazingly complex human brain that actually does the seeing, or the central nervous system connecting the eye to the brain through the spinal cord? Would an eye provide a benefit if it were not connected to the brain? What are the mathematical probabilities all three of those systems evolved independently and then connecting themselves giving us eyesight? Most mutations are either harmful or neutral. Seldom does a mutation accidentally provide a benefit. Mutations cause a net loss of genetic information over time. To get enough random chance beneficial mutations to create the human eye would be mathematically and scientifically impossible. Anyone with the least amount of common sense should recognize the human eye is the product of design and purpose. An honest evaluation of the survival of the fittest would realize it could not result in the amazingly complex human eye system we humans possess. Students who are not taught evolution score very high in biology testing.

[Anonymous]

You know that other species have eyes, right? That there is an evolutionary record of photosensitivity from invertebrates to vertebrates to humans? That animals such as seastars have photosensitive "eye spots" that function without a central nervous system?
The photosensitive cells and the nervous system (which is not separate from the brain) evolved together over time, each affecting the success of the other. Those creatures with better-functioning sensory systems would survive better than their peers and have more reproductive success. There are creatures all along this evolutionary spectrum with eye spots, eye cups, "pinhole" eyes, eyes filled with humor, and eyes that have lenses to better focus. There are creatures whose eyes are better than the "complex" human eye! Octopus eyes lack a blind spot, and some bird species have multiple fovea allowing for them to focus better in the periphery of their vision. A good designer would not have left a blind spot for the optic nerve in our eyes.

Here's a brief overview of a way that complex eyes could have evolved over time: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg/584px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png