Back on December 22, 2005, I boldly proposed the heresy that Intelligent Design (ID, that sham for creation science which is itself a sham for Biblical creation myths) should be taught in the classroom. What I had in mind was not an uncritical presentation, but an examination of ID claims in the light of science. I said that many students came to the classroom already conversant in ID explanations, and that refusing to counter these misguided views merely lent them legitimacy. Jim Clark disagreed, primarily, I believe, on the grounds that allowing any opportunity for ID in the classroom could be disastrous.
I now have some empirical evidence purportedly bearing on the question (Verhey, 2005). His report, an editorial commenting on it in the same journal (Nelson, 2005), and a news item on both in _Science_ (Holden, 2005) are available on- line at Verhey's web page [ http://www.cwu.edu/~verheys/ ] Using four sections of an introductory university course in biology which included both lectures and seminar-discussions, Verhey arranged for two sections to include study of the ID textbook by Jonathan Wells, _Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?_, as well as Dawkin's pro-evolution work, _The Blind Watchmaker_, and an on-line refutation of _Icons_ called _Icons of Obfuscation_. The other two sections omitted any ID material, substituting instead Ridley's book on the evolution of sex, _The Red Queen_. So the comparison was between sections which assigned ID material plus information refuting it, and sections which omitted ID. Different instructors were a complicating confound. Verhey assessed attitude change toward creationism and evolution at the end of the course, on a six-point scale from Christian literalist through atheistic evolutionist. Return rate was modest, only 64%. He found that 61% of the responding students critically exposed to ID showed some change in attitude compared with 21% for the students in sections omitting it. Unfortunately, this data is actually useless, because it lumps together change _towards_ evolution with change _against_ it. More usefully, Verhey reported that for the 38 responding students given exposure to ID, 9 changed toward evolution (24%) and 3 against it. For the 28 students in the sections without ID, 5 changed, all towards evolution (18%). This is not a persuasive result. Nelson, in his editorial, doesn't appear to notice this, concluding from Verhey's report that: "When students make direct comparisons of their na¨ve misconceptions with scientifically better-founded schemes, change is frequent...Verhey's article...provides powerful evidence. Strong emphasis on evolution alone produced almost no change in students' conceptions. In contrast, discussions comparing "intelligent design" with mainstream evolution... produced extensive change toward more scientifically viable views" . I guess he wasn't reading the same study I was. In summary, I like the attempt to collect empirical data, I like the (regrettably unfounded) conclusion, but the data itself is poorly-analysed and weak. I hope someone will do this better. Stephen Holden, C. (2005). Two views better than one? _Science_, 310, 1274. Nelson, C. (2005). How can we help students really understand evolution? BioScience, 55, 923. Verhey, S. (2005). The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism and evolution. BioScience, 55, 996-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
