Teaching the contexts: Why evolution should be taught as an argument and how it might be done

Religion and Education

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 14-39

  Campbell, John A ^a   Daughtrey, Taz ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007860835     PISSN: 15507394     EISSN: 19498381     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15507394.2006.10012382     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. E. J. Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion, (New York: Harper Collins, 1997).
2. V. Grabiner and P.D. Miller, “Effects of the Scopes Trial: Was it a victory for evolutionists?” Science, vol. 185 (6 September 1974), 832-837.
3. NSF. National Science Foundation, “Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding” in Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, accessed 18 September 2006, at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm
4. J. D. Miller, E. C. Scott, S. Okamoto, “Public Acceptance of Evolution,”Science 11 August 2006 Vol. 313 no. 5788, 765-766.
5. The most complete statement is J. A. Campbell, “Intelligent Design, Darwinism and the Philosophy of Public Education,” in J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer, eds., Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2003):3-44. Supporters of an argument-centered approach to teaching science include William Provine, Larry Arnhart and David Depew.
6. E. C. Scott and G. Branch, “Evolution: What’s Wrong with ‘Teaching the Controversy,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8 (10):499-502
7. R. T. Pennock, “Should Creationism Be Taught in the Public Schools,” Science and Education, 2, No. 2. (March, 2002): 111-133.
8. For the centrality of argument to modern science see M. Pera, The Discourses of Science, Clarissa Botsford, trans., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
9. For a succinct summation of the aims of traditional liberal education see T. M. Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, (New York: Longman, 1990):37.
10. The saying is associated with M. Luther but is probably apocryphal. On the problem it addresses see Donald Jay Grout, and Clade V. Palisca, A History of Western Music (New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001), 225-227
11. Robin A. Leaver, “The Lutheran Reformation,” in Iaian Fenlon, Man & Music: The Renaissance: From the 1470s to the end of the 16th Century (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989), 263-285.
12. C. Darwin, On The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964): 459.
13. J.A. Campbell, “Why Was Darwin Believed? Darwin’s Origin and the Problem of Intellectual revolution, Configurations, 11 (2004):231.
14. C. Darwin, Charles Darwin’s Autobiography, Sir. F. Darwin, “Reminiscences of My Father’s Everyday Life,” New York: Collier Books, 1961:115.
15. C. Darwin, “Reminiscences of My Father’s Everyday Life,” 1964, 171.
16. C. Darwin, “Reminiscences of My Father’s Everyday Life,” 167.
17. C. Darwin, “Reminiscences of My Father’s Everyday Life,” 485.
18. W. W. Cobern, “Science as an Exercise in Foreign Affairs,” Science and Education, 4 (1995): 287-302.
19. W. W. Cobern, “Science as an Exercise in Foreign Affairs,” 293.
20. W. E. Gladstone, “Public Speaking,” 267.
21. Reprinted with an introduction by Loren Reid, “Gladstone’s Essay on Public Speaking,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 39 (October, 1953):265-272.
22. S. J. Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16-22
23. National Academy of Sciences, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington, D, C: National Academy Press, 1998). “Proposing the Theory of Biological Evolution: Historical Perspective,” accessed 18 September 2006 at http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol6-g.html>
24. As equal candidate is: E. Mayr, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).
25. T. Shanahan, The Evolution of Darwinism: Selection, Adaptation, and Progress in evolutionary Biology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004):2.
26. S. Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History, (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977): 11
27. T. Shanahan, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History 2004, 2-3.
28. T. Shanahan, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History 3.
29. C. Darwin, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History 1964, 489.
30. T. Shanahan, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections on Natural History 2004, 3.
31. P. H. Barrett, P. J. Gautrey, S. Herbert, D. Kohn, and S. Smith, Charles Darwin’s Notebooks: 1836-1844, (London & Ithaca, N.Y.: British Museum (Natural History) Cornell University Press, 1987).
32. P. H. Barrett, P. J. Gautrey, S. Herbert, D. Kohn, and S. Smith, Charles Darwin’s Notebooks: 1836-1844, 180.
33. P. H. Barrett, P. J. Gautrey, S. Herbert, D. Kohn, and S. Smith, Charles Darwin’s Notebooks: 1836-1844, 374-376.
34. Personal communication, Professor Keith Benson, historian of science and Principal, Green College, University of British Columbia.
35. Darwin Charles Darwin’s Notebooks: 1836-1844 1964, 1.
36. M. Peckham, The Origin of Species By Charles Darwin: A Variorum Text, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959): 57.
37. M. Peckham, The Origin of Species By Charles Darwin: A Variorum Text.
38. F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, New York: S. Appleton & Co., 1911 Vol. 2, 146.
39. F. Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin 1911, 163.
40. J.A. Campbell, “The Invisible Rhetorician: Charles Darwin’s ‘Third Party’ Strategy,” Rhetorica 7 No.1 (Winter, 1989):70-74.
41. J.A. Campbell, 1989, esp. 63-74.
42. M. Peckham, 1959, 759. See lines 270:b and 270:f.
43. C. Darwin, 1964, 490.
44. Biology teachers should be aware of the myth of Darwin’s deathbed conversion. The definititve study of this hoax is James Moore, The Darwin Legend, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994):21-27.
45. N. Barlow, ed., The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-18882. With Original Omissions Restored, (London: Collins, 1958):85-96
46. R. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977):112. Westfall notes, however, that the title “Royal” was the King’s most important gift for it threw behind the society the prestige of the state. As for money when it came to the choice between his mistress Nell Gwyn or science Charles II favored the lady. In fact the Royal Society depended on private funding— and from this we can see the origin of the “amateur” character of much British science that only began to change in Huxley’s generation.
47. Obviously things were more complicated than this. The connection between science and religion was of great concern to naturalists themselves— particularly in England. What grew up under the auspices of the Royal Society was what Dobbs and Jacob have called “Newtonian Christianity.”
48. Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, and Margaret C. Jacob, Newton and The Culture of Newtonianism, (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1995):95-101.
49. Newton and The Culture of Newtonianism, 98. The epitome of Newtonian Christianity was Samuel Clarke. Under Clarke’s lead British science facilitated “a way of viewing the world that permitted science and could be seen to retain divine authority.”
50. Two classic introductions to the ubiquity of the design argument in the scientific world before Darwin are: C. C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology: The Impact of Scientific Discoveries Upon Religious Beliefs in the Decades Before Darwin, (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959)
51. J. C. Green, The Death of Adam: Evolution and Its Impact on Western Thought, (New York: Mentor Books, 1961).
52. The word was coined by William Whewell. W. Whewell, Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, founded upon their history, Vol. 1 (London: John W. Parker & Sons. 1840, Reprint of Second edition, 1967, New York: Johnson Reprint Co.):113.
53. W. Paley, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (Boston: Gould & Lincoln, 1863).
54. D.C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995):21.
55. C. Darwin, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea 1961, 35.
56. C. Darwin, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
57. C. Darwin, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea 1964, 490.
58. For an account of Lyell’s impact on Darwin’s scientific method and argument see: J.A. Campbell, “The ‘Anxiety of Influence,’-Hermeneutic Rhetoric and the Triumph of Darwin’s Invention Over Incommensurability,” in R.A. Harris, ed., Rhetoric and Incommensurability, (West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press, 2005):334-390.
59. See note 62 above. A penetrating philosophic analysis is: D. J. Depew & B. H. Weber, Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997): esp. 106-111 and all of Ch.4.
60. C. Darwin, Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection, 1964, 40.
61. J. F. W. Herschel, A Preliminary Discourse on The Study of Natural Philosophy, With new forward by Arthur Fine, (Facsimile of the 1830 edition published as volume I of Dionysius Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopaedia), (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987):7.
62. J. F. W. Herschel, A Preliminary Discourse on The Study of Natural Philosophy, Introduction by Arthur Fine, 9.
63. F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, eds., The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, v 7 1858-1859, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991): 423
64. Letter to Charles Lyell The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, v 7 1858-185910 December, 1859.
65. The most thorough discussions of why the vera causa principle was not interpreted in Darwin’s favor by his colleagues is V. Kavalovski, “The Vera Causa Principle: A Historico-Philosophic Study of a Meta-Theoretic Concept from Newton Through Darwin,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1974): esp. 2-4. See also Depew & Weber above note 51.
66. F. Burkhardt, et. al., Correspondence 8, (1860):25.
67. To L. Jenyns Correspondence 7 January, 1860.
68. M. J. S. Hodge, “The Structure and Strategy of Darwin’s Long Argument,” British Journal of the History of Science, 10 (1977):242-245.