29 February 2008

Weekly sampler 8

It's snowing again. Cycling seems like a childhood memory. You'd think this would give me more opportunities to work on blog posts. Gah.

1. My friends and colleagues, Debbie and Loren Haarsma, were the subject of a nice local news story, focusing on their work as scientists and Christians. They have a superb new book out, which I've promised to review here sometime soon.

2. Is evolution too difficult or complicated for secondary students to grasp? This is a question that was discussed in the blogosphere recently, and even when religious/cultural debris is cleared away, I think the question is still a good one. (Add the religious/cultural influences back in, and you realize that teaching evolution at any level entails both the careful explication of the relevant principles and the careful dismantling of deliberately-introduced misinformation.) Some of the key concepts in evolutionary theory are decidedly non-intuitive. For example, I have the impression that it's just plain hard for people to get their heads around the notion of different species (let alone different families, orders, etc.) springing from a common ancestor. Maybe it's the ongoing influence of old errors (in this case, I think, orthogenesis), but I do wonder if common descent is one of those ideas that our kludgy brains just don't get straight off.

But of course that doesn't mean evolution can't be effectively taught to high schoolers. Algebra, after all, doesn't come naturally to most people, but I haven't seen anyone seriously propose that it be removed from high school curricula.

In fact, I think evolution is a lot like algebra. It takes time to teach right. It's a demanding subject, but it's within the capacity of high schoolers to understand. Levels of mastery and comprehension will vary significantly. Teachers who are poorly-trained and/or unprepared may do more harm than good. The main difference between evolution and algebra is this: there are no ministries or institutes devoted to hindering the work of algebra teachers. (Well, okay, there's MTV, but you get my point.)

3. And on that subject, PBS (WGBH Boston) has collaborated on the development of some resources for instructor professional development, with the aim of providing "the background and skills they need to counter pressures to present or address religiously based alternatives to the theory of evolution." The tools draw on materials from NOVA's "Judgment Day" episode on ID and Dover. I've only browsed, but there looks to be some very good stuff on the site. Maybe I'll comment further sometime.

4. Until this week, I was unaware of the ministry of Timothy Keller and Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. Redeemer alone is an interesting and encouraging story, but now Keller has published a book in which he discusses (among other things) evolution. He was recently interviewed by First Things, and his comments were discussed extensively on the ASA listserv, where some errors (or simplifications) were dissected. It would be interesting to compare his thoughts with those of Tony Campolo: both accept evolutionary science, but "timidly" as one ASA commenter put it.

5. Oliver Sacks is now blogging (occasionally) at the New York Times, in a blog devoted to migraines. (Subtitled "Perspectives on a Headache." Ouch.) I'm not terribly interested in migraines, but if Oliver Sacks wrote an essay about sawdust, I'd read it with rabid anticipation. A recent piece on patterned visual sensations accompanying migraine auras begins with Sacks' description of his own experiences, and ends with musings on the potential universality of "self-organization," with the typical breathtaking Sacks prose beating the path. (Via Neurophilosophy.)


Steve Martin said...

Hi Stephen,
First, I do like these weekly samplers. Thanks.

On Campolo and Keller and timidness: Man - I'm not sure Campolo and timid could ever be used in the same sentence - kind of like Bono and timid :-). On evolution, I think Campolo's mostly wrong (bundling the scientific theory with the philosophy): good instincts (protecting the dignity of humanity), bad conclusion.

On Keller, I don't think that he is timid either. (I probably did a little diservice by quoting only the one snippet of the First Things interview on the ASA list - David O. corrected that by quoting it at length to provide context). I agree with Rich B. that he is taking some personal risk here & is being pretty wise / balanced & judicious in his proposal.

Stephen Matheson said...

Hey Steve--

Glad you like the samplers; they keep me from slumping into bloglessness when I'm buried by experiments and other writing. Thanks for smiles on Campolo.

So here's a question for you, and I'll post it to David O. and to anyone else who's listening. Both Campolo and Keller are serious evangelicals who are willing to come out of the closet on evolution. Should I be encouraged? Is there some real movement happening in Evangelicaldom? I want to believe,


Cindy said...

interesting question on when to teach evolution. i homeschool my 3rd grade daughter. one of the biggest challenges i face with curriculum is that good, smart curricula can become mind blowingly stupid the moment any topic is raised concerning biology or natural sciences. It is difficult for me to understand, never mind explain evolution. But, I want my daughter to be well versed in the sciences. Heck- I want her to be an astrophysicist! But first we have to get through evolutionary theory.

I love your list of common misconceptions about evolution. Perhaps you would consider writing some smart curricula for middle and higher grades that discount neither God nor evolution?

Steve Martin said...

Hi Stephen,
re: Is there some real movement happening in Evangelicaldom?
Well, from my one small corner of Evangelicaldom, looking through my own pinhole, I'd say:
- there is a significant # of evangelicals that either accept the fact of evolution or at least accept that an Evangelical can be orthodox & accept evolution. (note: I think there is a significant increase in the absolute # over the last couple of decades, the proportion of this group to all Evangelicals is probably still very small - like if you are at 1% and double your # to 2%; significant increase but still insignificant representation).
- there is virtually no movement for Evangelical ministries, denominations, or churches to officially change their stance, even if a significant proportion of their adherents &/or leadership do accept evolution. It is just way too dangerous a topic.

Stephen Matheson said...

Then let's keep at it.

Thanks for the comment! My wife and I are longtime homeschoolers, though we're transitioning to local Christian schools next year. It's so encouraging to hear from you.

I don't have plans to write any curricula, but I do have some suggestions. My church published a book called Fossils and Faith that may be just what you are looking for, and I know the wonderful pastor who wrote it. In this review in our church's magazine, you can see that it's probably at the right level, and that it was created with help from Deborah and Loren Haarsma, who are good friends and colleagues mentioned here before. And speaking of the Haarsmas, I think their new book, which I mentioned in Weekly samplers 5 and 8, would also work well for a bright middle-schooler.

Hope that helps! I have other ideas too, so bug me again if that's not enough.