I am a happy and content Latter-day Saint who teaches evolution at a non-LDS university. In fact, I have taught evolution in various forums and institutions for 30 years. In this essay I am temporarily taking off my LDS hat, although please remember that I have one. This essay deals with a rather generic but important connection between science and religion -- i.e., teaching evolution to religious students.
Since the topic of evolution is controversial, does it need to be taught in a special manner? Is it a dangerous topic that destroys faith in God? Do Bible-believing students need to be taught evolution in a manner that is different from the way it is taught to other students?
A main point to this essay is that all students need to learn about the central principle of life science: Darwin's evolution. Religious students are intelligent, and they need NO special treatment at all. Evolution is neutral to theology, even though some argue that it is not. Evolution (in my opinion) is the greatest of all scientific principles. It needs to be promoted, taught, discussed, and ultimately utilized. (Of course, some of what I said may be biased).
Bias aside, ignoring evolution in the life sciences would be like ignoring gravity in the physical sciences. The topics of evolution and gravity are central to their respective fields. These topics are NOT subtle. They stare us in the face and hit us over the head. As such, they CANNOT be ignored.
What is fascinating, from a science teacher's perspective, is that students have no difficulty believing gravity, but some really struggle believing in evolution. A recent Gallup Poll suggested only 39% of Americans believe in evolution. In religious populations that figure dropped to 24%. Fortunately, in all types of populations, as educational level increases, so does belief in evolution. In other words, education works. (However, please understand I know and respect some very smart and intelligent disbelievers).
Modern science is neither a theistic nor an atheistic enterprise. Science as a discipline simply must be neutral to deity. But, we should always remember that scientists can be deeply religious or not. Scientists come in all flavors.
An important sociological study was recently published concerning the religiosity of scientists (see: E.H. Ecklund, J.Z. Park, & P.T. Veliz, 2008, “Secularization and religious change among elite scientists,” Social Forces, 86: 1805-1839). In 2005 this study sampled scientists from 21 “elite” universities (Harvard, MIT, University of Chicago, etc.) regarding their religious affiliation and attendance. Scientists by discipline do not differ a great deal, and therefore I will focus on the results from biologists (N = 248) and psychologists (N = 183). The percent of these scientists who considered themselves religiously affiliated was 37% and 52%, respectively. Of the biologists, 15% attended religious services each month or greater, and 29% attended several times per year. Of the psychologists, 16% attended religious services each month or greater, and 31% attended several times per year. The authors of the study concluded: “academic scientists … are as a whole not entirely abandoning their involvement in religious organizations.”
While it may be true that academicians as a whole are less religious than the population at large, there is no strong evidence that scientists are disproportionately being driven away.
It is a challenge for teachers of evolution (and in the life sciences in general) to relate to students who struggle with Darwinism. While it is legitimate for such teachers to wonder whether these students are missing key pieces of information, it is NOT legitimate for them to be concerned whether they are experiencing religious roadblocks. (This is a point that will be developed later).
Evolution, of course, does hit the scientist in the face. There are few objects on earth more profound (or more scary) than a gigantic Triceratops skull. Dinosaur fossils are found only in certain layers of the earth, because dinosaurs lived only during the Mesozoic era between 225 and 65 million years ago. Multiple dating methods confirm these dates over and over again. Scientists do NOT have the option of ignoring either the dates or the dinosaurs.
The vast majority of college students (to no surprise) do NOT find evolutionary concepts to be an intellectual or emotional struggle. But, in any classroom there will always be a few students (a minority) who do. When such students challenge the information being taught, instructors should welcome it.
It is rare, but once per year I get an "end of the class" student evaluation that says something like: "Dr. Faux needs to be told that evolution is not fact, only a theory." Just one student in my many years of teaching has told me face to face: "You need to realize that your evolution comments damages people's faith." If anything, my experience contradicts that claim.
Student ideologies (religious or otherwise) may prohibit “belief” in evolution, but such students CAN “understand” the data and the concepts. I tell students (in lower division classes) that I will test their understanding of evolution. I do NOT grade them on their belief in evolution.
Instructors of evolution (and other controversial topics) must be free to analyze, critique, and teach about religious claims, but they should do so without intentionally harming or demeaning the individuals or groups involved. To the profession, this is an ethical responsibility.
Universities (almost always) support faculty decisions to teach controversial topics, like evolution. Yet, there are right ways and wrong ways to handle such topics. Training and mentoring young faculty members can be key.
Instructors, however, cannot keep from stepping on individual toes. Knowledge can sometimes be intellectually painful. But, such pain is often needed in the process of intellectual growth. There is NOTHING wrong with a carefully managed dialogue of controversial or opposing positions in the classroom. Hopefully, through such experiences students will learn how to express controversial ideas in a civil, thoughtful, and respectful manner.
Religious college students have been stereotyped to the point where some science instructors have some fear in teaching evolution. Some instructors, for example, believe their student evaluations will go down if they teach Darwin.
I would argue that students are NOT being properly educated when the topic of evolution is sidestepped. Such an action is ultimately intellectually shady, but also based in misperception. Why? University instructors should NEVER presume that religious affiliation would affect a student’s reaction toward controversial topics such as evolution.
Some instructors inappropriately think of religion as a handicap. In reality, religious thinkers are VERY intelligent. Historically, religion has overcome the idea that the earth is flat and not the center of the universe. If so, why should evolution be troublesome?
Although there are a few noisy groups that battle against evolution. The reality is that most people and most religions do not. They handle the ideas of science well.
For example, a Vatican sponsored evolution conference was recently held at Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome, March 3-7 2009). The conference was titled: "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories." The discussion centered around the 150th year mark of Darwin's Origin of Species. As a whole, the conference was very sympathetic to evolution.
I personally know an Evangelical Protestant minister with a Masters degree in Biology. He would argue that God created everything, but the creations were performed over time in a manner consistent with evolutionary transitions. He would further argue that humans are the pinnacle of creation.
I was privileged for many years to have a highly respected LDS Stake President who was a Ph.D. biologist and ardent evolutionist. Further, I was trained in graduate school by LDS professors who were evolutionists.
This past Sunday newspaper of the Des Moines Register (April 26, 2009) published a picture of a college student holding a replica of an ancient Hominin skull. The caption read: “Kendra … examines a replica skull in her human origins class at UNI. She says it’s her favorite course, even though the theory of evolution contradicts her Christian beliefs.”
Religious people do NOT automatically steer away from evolution. They are curious. They want to learn. Like any others, they need to know the central synthesizing idea behind ALL of life science.
Now, I will admit that natural scientists do NOT always help their cause. My accusations cut across two groups.
Group "1" consists of a few evolutionary scientists who not only promote evolution but who deny God in the process. The most notable scientist in this group is Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion (2006). In the book Dawkins argues (e.g., p. 188-189) that Darwinian evolution accounts for the appearance of “design” in living organisms without resort to an intelligent designer. I would agree with this statement, but Dawkins goes an inappropriate (at least from a scientific point of view) step farther. He concludes: “God almost certainly does not exist.” Such a claim goes far beyond the data.
Dawkin's arguments bolster the unfortunate stereotype that evolutionary ideas are fundamentally “anti-God.” Yet, science is neutral to theology.
Group "2" consists of those small minority of scientists with a religious agenda who promote "Intelligent Design" (see: www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php). There are three key evolutionary points that they often deny. They deny that:
**evolutionary changes lead to speciation;
**all life has a common ancestry;
** and the earth and universe is ancient in age.
NEITHER science nor theology is helped by such views in my opinion.
How can rejecting the concept of gravity help religion? It cannot. By denying evolution, a basic fact of life science, religion also will be harmed.
Here are a few "Thou Shalts" for any instructor dealing with science education:
1. University educators should NOT sidestep evolution in order to make students or the public comfortable.
2. University educators should, however, respect religious differences by NOT demeaning students who hold theological views of creation.
3. Science educators should NOT presume that evolution is inevitably incompatible with religion.
4. Scientists and academicians should teach evolution in the university without hesitation.
It is fundamental to remember: Religious students are intelligent and do NOT need differential treatment in the science classroom.
Besides, all college and university students need to be inspired by the following:
Charles Darwin was unsure what to do after graduating from Cambridge in 1831. His academic advisor, John S. Henslow, Professor of Botany, advised Darwin to sail later that year to South America on the HMS Beagle. Darwin did, and science was changed forever.
In other words: Educators DO make a difference.
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
