Florida ponders teaching evolution - some thoughts from Ontario

Apparently, a drive to teach evolution is taking root in Florida.

Assuming that one is not going to teach evolution simply as a form of indoctrination in materialism, there is an interesting question about when and how to teach it. I remember trying to unpack that question for a bemused Toronto Star reporter a while back (the one who incorrectly identified me as a fundamentalist).

Briefly, you can teach sciences by starting with physics and then going through chemistry to biology and finishing with ecology. Or you can do it the other way around. Of course, you could put them all over the map too, for theconvenience of scheduling. I don't like that third method, but then I never liked crazy quilts. Either of the first two methods will work well for comprehension in general, but a key consequence follows:

If you start with physics, you will be teaching physics in Grade Nine and biology/ecology in Grade Twelve. If you start with ecology/biology, you will be teaching them in Grade Nine and physics in Grade Twelve. The main problem is - obviously - a practical one.

How deeply can you go into a topic with Niners? When I was in high school in Ontario forty-five years ago, we started with biology. We studied evolution, but it was very simple. For example, we were asked to note the rudimentary hind legs of a snake. The idea that the snake once had legs but lost them through disuse was introduced as the explanation. We were shown a tree of life diagram (a picturesque idea now largely exploded). We certainly didn't learn anything very complex because we couldn't have.

Today in Ontario, we do a more indepth biology course in Grade Twelve. Some have criticized this arrangement because many students drop out of sciences by Grade Twelve and don't learn about evolution. That's true, but it is also true that the ones who do study biology in Grade Twelve learn a lot more about evolution than they could likely have handled in Grade Nine. The Grade Twelve biology textbook (McGraw-Hill Ryerson) on my shelf has nearly 100 pages on evolution, discussing things the Niners couldn't handle.

So there you are: If you want a topic studied in depth by those who are likely to go on in sciences, your best bet is to take it up in Grade Twelve. If you want to make sure that everyone knows a little of it, your best bet is to take it up in Grade Nine. I suppose there are various options in between.

Alternatively, if the Florida authorities want to introduce evolution as propaganda for materialism, in and out of season and at all times and places, ... they are creating an audience for intelligent design. People who had never thought about intelligent design before will start thinking about it.

Addition re Ontario curriculum:

A friend writes with up-to-the minute Ontario Curriculum information:

For the academic (university-bound) students, the arrangement is as follows:

In Grade 9 and 10, the students do a general science curriculum which divides the year between four different scientific subjects: physics, chemistry, biology, and earth and space science. My impression is that the first three subjects get more attention than the fourth, but that may vary from school to school. The biology unit in Grade 9 covers primarily the biology of the cell, whereas in Grade 10 the biology unit is entirely on ecology.

In Grade 11, physics, chemistry and biology are all offered as independent subjects, the prerequisite for each being Grade 10 science.

In Grade 12, physics, chemistry and biology are all offered again as independent subjects, the prerequisite for each being the corresponding Grade 11 course.

In Grade 12 there is also an Earth and Space Science course, the prerequisite being Grade 10 Science.

A student who intends to major in biology at university will presumably take biology in Grade 11 and 12, which means that this student will have studied biology for four years in high school, albeit for only about a third of a year in each of Grade 9 and Grade 10. This four-year sequence provides the first-year university student with a reasonably sophisticated knowledge base in biology, and, since admission to Year 1 Science programmes at virtually any Canadian university requires Grade 12 Chemistry and Grade 12 Physics, a good solid grounding (again, four years) in each of those subjects as well.

I haven't looked in detail into the "evolution" component of the Ontario biology courses, but I note that "evolution" isn't mentioned on any of the course outlines until Grade 12, and I know from my own careful examination that the ecology textbook for Grade 10 has virtually no discussion of evolution at all, yet provides a very thorough grounding in the basic principles of ecology: food chains, water cycle, carbon cycle, etc. This goes to show that you can educate science students very soundly in how living nature works without forcing them to side with any particular view regarding how living nature originated.

The basic structure and contents of the Ontario secondary curriculum are laid out in a Ministry of Education document to be found here.

This looks quite good really, and much better than I could have hoped for, because the student tackles each subject with an ascending degree of complexity. It explains why the course can go into considerable detail about evolution in Grade 12.

Thinkquote of the day: The Florida ID conference

ID guy Jonathan Wells tells me,

On Friday evening, September 29, 2006, several of us (Mike Behe, Bill Dembski, Ralph Seelke and myself) spoke to a crowd of almost 4,000 people at the University of South Florida's Sun Dome in Tampa, usually devoted to sports events such as basketball games. The event was sponsored by Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) . It was organized by some hard-working volunteers.

THe doctor- run Florida ID conference was a hit. The audience consisted almost entirely of people seriously interested in learning about ID -- including students, faculty, and parents. There were a few Darwinists present, who contented themselves largely with handing out leaflets ("ID Is Not Science") and shouting "Darwin" as they skulked out of the Sun Dome. True to form, the USF biology department officially boycotted the event, which was carried live on a local radio station.

Ah yes. If I went to interview the bio profs at USF, they would likely castigate the public for science ignorance. But science is not what the public disclaims, but rather universal Darwinsm, and that is not really about science.

Incidentally, it makes a great deal of difference that doctors doubt Darwin. Doctors are the science pros whose opinion the public most values. When was the last time an evolutionary biologist saved your life or made any material contribution to your well-being?

Wells is the author of Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being granted tenure at Baylor after a long struggle - even after helping in a small way to destroy the Baylor Bears' ancient glory - in the opinion of a hyper sportswriter.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.