In recent years our youth have been overwhelmed
with a sea of evolutionary propaganda. Sadly, the objective
seems to be to program their young minds toward evolution
only, so that they will believe, without questioning, that
all kinds of organisms have evolved by natural processes and
were not created by God.
Recent studies, however, are showing that these
efforts even with all the media and money behind them, are
failing. In spite of all the forcefeeding of evolution, the
theory of evolution seems to be failing to survive among those
who are free to think objectively.
Consider the results of a study published in
the very prestigious Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
a journal long noted for its accuracy in reporting research
in science education. This recent (1990) research paper, by
Beth A. Bishop and Charles W. Anderson, entitled "Student
Conceptions of Natural Selection and its Role in Evolution"
indicated that, in spite of intensive programming in a college
"non-majors' biology" course, it is extremely difficult
to get students to understand how evolution works. "Although
the students in this case had taken an average of 1.9 years
of previous biology courses, performance on the pre-test was
uniformly low."
After taking the course, the students were tested
again, but they showed no significant improvement in understanding
evolution. As one can imagine, this experience would be particularly
frustrating to evolutionists. Perhaps the most startling factor
is that the focus of the study was on "natural selection
as a mechanism for evolution." Now this does not seem
like a terribly difficult concept to understand on its face,
but it appears that the college students studied could not
comprehend these long held and extensively taught concepts.
Evolutionists have apparently made the concept of evolution
so confusing that a thinking student isn't sure exactly what
he is supposed to be learning.
In this study, the experimenters started out
with the postulate that evolution is the unifying framework
for modern biology. Without a complete understanding of evolution,
they say a student cannot comprehend biology. With this idea
as a foundation, the researchers set out to find reasons why
the intelligent non-biology major in college cannot understand
scientific evolutionary mechanisms. The three main purposes
of their study were as follows:
1. "To describe, as completely as
possible, the conceptions held by college nonscience majors
concerning the mechanism of natural selection and the factors
responsible for evolutionary change."
At the very outset, any knowledgeable person who has studied
origins knows that there is much argument about the notion
that natural selection has any effect at all on macroevolution
(Lewin, 1980, 1982; Ayala, 1975; L.H. Matthews, 1971; Smith,
1982; Rifkin, 1983; Martin, 1953; Salisbury, 1969). An objective
look at this purpose for the study immediately suggests
a possible reason for an intelligent student rejecting,
or not understanding, the rationale behind natural selection
as a suggested mechanism for evolution. The experimenters
should not have been surprised that programming a rational
mind in this direction could be very troublesome.2. "To assess the effects of instruction
(including both previous high school and college biology
instruction and our college non-majors' biology course)
on the conceptions held by students."
This interesting purpose for the study indicates the intense
concern of the evolutionist. Here they are, identifying
those who do not comprehend evolutionism, so they can set
them up for more intense programming procedures. This is
exactly what a psychologist would do if he wanted to brainwash
a mind away from undesirable ideas. This type of objective
could well become the tool for future brainwashing techniques.3. "To determine whether student conceptions
of natural selection were associated with student belief
in the theory of evolution as historical fact."
This objective clearly places the student on the line. Are
they believers in evolution or are they not? If they are
believers, do they know what they must believe about natural
selection and its implications as a mechanism for evolution?
If they are not believers, then what education practices
and programming will make them believers? In other words,
those who teach evolution are faced with the task of making
instructional adjustments. Consequently, adjustments were
made in this study that were designed to ensure that the
student would come to believe that natural selection leads
to the fact of evolution.
The study began by extracting what the researchers
believed to be the essential content of evolution and natural
selection from the lecture material and the required text
(not named) of the course. After a series of pilot testing,
the final criterion referenced test was selected for the study
and reported on in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
TABLE I
A sample of part of the diagnostic test is given as follows:
| 1. Cheetahs (large African cats) are able to run faster than 60 miles per hour, when chasing prey. How would a biologist explain how the ability to run fast evolved in cheetahs, assuming their ancestors could run only 20 miles per hour? |
| 2. Cave salamanders are blind (they have eyes which are non-functional). How would a biologist explain how blind cave salamanders evolved from sighted ancestors? |
| 3. a) The trait of webbed feet in ducks: (1 = only left statement correct; 5 = only right statement correct; 3 = both statements equally correct) |
||||
| Appeared in ancestral ducks because they lived in water and needed webbed feet to swim. Explain: |
1-2-3-4-5 | Appeared in ducks because of a chance mutation. | ||
| b) While ducks were evolving webbed feet: | ||||
| With each generation, most ducks had about the same amount of webbing on their feet as their parents. Explain: |
1-2-3-4-5 | With each generation, most ducks had a tiny bit more webbing on their feet than their parents. |
||
| c) If a population of ducks was forced to live in an environment where water for swimming was not available: |
||||
| Many ducks would die because their feet were poorly adapted to this environment. Explain: |
1-2-3-4-5 | The ducks would gradually develop non-webbed feet. | ||
| d) The populations of ducks evolved webbed feet because: |
||||
| The more successful ducks adapted to their aquatic environment. Explain: |
1-2-3-4-5 | The less successful ducks died without offspring. | ||
The researchers were diligent in pursuing their
objective to determine how to convince these college students
that evolution by natural selection was a fact, but the conclusion
was understandably disappointing to both Bishop and Anderson.
After all this effort, the researchers found that most students
still had ideas about how and why evolution occurred that
were much different from those accepted by standard biologists.
These were called naive conceptions by the researchers. A
comparison of students holding the "scientific"
and "naive" understanding of the mechanism of evolution
is given in the reproduced chart below.
It appears from this study that, no matter how
intensive the instructional force toward correcting the naive
view, these college students showed unsatisfactory gains in
the understanding of evolution. In fact, non-believers appeared
to understand evolution much better than did those students
who believe in evolution! It was found, however, that intensified
instruction can cause some change in students' "naive"
conceptions. The study goes on to report, however, that "even
the intensive revised teaching methods and materials were
not sufficient to help a significant number of students."
From a creationist point of view, the most distressing
part of this research lies in the development of a diagnostic
test that focuses on a student's understanding of evolution.
This kind of testing, relating to a concept that can never
stand the test of scientific rigor, could become very dangerous
to intellectual freedom. We could easily be on the threshold
of developing brainwashed intellectual robots.
TABLE II
Relation between Belief in Evolution and Student Conceptions:
Post-test
| Scientific Conception | Percent of Students Understanding Scientific Conception |
||||
| Issue | Believers (28 Students) |
Non-Believers (15 Students) |
Unsure (14 Students) |
||
| 1. Origin and survival of new traits |
Random processes responsible for appearance of traits; natural selection accounts for survival or disappearance |
50 | 73 | 64 | |
| 2. Role of variation within populations |
Variable population essential for evolution |
57 | 73 | 36 | |
| 3. Evolution- ary change |
Involves changing proportions of individuals with discrete traits |
57 | 80 | 50 | |
Inquiry is the heart of science and, from this
study, it would be easy to predict that if this freedom were
given to the college students in the study, the results would
have been even more disastrous for evolution. Studies have
shown that when students are given freedom to inquire and
freedom of choice between the evolution and creation model,
they tend to choose the creation model.
What is it, then, that drives the anti-creationist
to want to brainwash our children in the public schools? The
scientific enterprise has much to be concerned about in this
blind thrust to promote a dead theory.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ayala, Francisco J., "Scientific Hypotheses,
Natural Selection and the Neutrality Theory of Protein Evolution
in the Role of Natural Selection in Human Evolution,"
F.M. Salzano Ed., North Holland Publishing Company, 1975.
pp.19-end of chapter.
2. Bliss, Richard B., A Comparison of Two Approaches
to the Teaching of Origins of Living Things to High School
Biology Students in Racine, Wisconsin, ERIC File no.
Ed. 152-568.
3. Lewin, Roger: "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,"
Science, 21 November 1980, pp. 883-887.
4. Martin, C.P.: "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,"
American Scientist, Vol. 41, p. 103.
5. Matthews, L. Harrison, D.Sc., FRS. Introduction to
the Origin of Species, J.M. Dent and Sons, London, 1971.
6. Rifkin, Jeremy, Algeny (New York: Viking Press,
1983), p. 134.
7. Salisbury, Frank B., "Natural Selection and the
Complexity of the Gene," Nature (Vol. 224, October
24, 1969).
8. Smith, Huston, "Evolutionary Mechanisms," Christian
Century (July 7-14, 1982), p. 756.* Former Director of Science Education,
Unified School District #1, Racine, Wisconsin. Former Director
of ICR's Curriculum Development.
