Dusting off Darwin: Can We Still Afford to Ban Him from the Schools?

Abstract

CAN THE NEXT GENERATION of American adults survive in ignorance of laws of evolution by natural selection? Perhaps, but it won't be easy. As permanence of our tenure on planet grows increasingly questionable, it is time that we took seriously Alexander Pope's dictum that the proper study of mankind is man. And we will never fully grasp human nature until we are willing to marry findings of evolutionary biology to insights of social science in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of biological as well as social and cultural forces that influence human behavior. As a longtime observer of poverty of social education in this country, I am increasingly pursuaded that our best hope for saving planet's most endangered species, homo sapiens is to integrate teaching of science and social studies around study of human nature. To achieve this we can no longer avoid teaching human evolution in our schools. Mixing science with social studies is hardly a new idea. The era of educational reform that began with Sputnik-inspired revolution in science and mathematics teaching swept all educators into its wake, and for a time it appeared as if liberal education was to be equated with teachings of science. Most social science reformers of that period accepted without question premise that scientific approaches to learning were better approaches. The rise of inquiry-based teaching, search for Jerome Bruner's structure of and stress upon introduction of quantifiable data into social studies classroom were all influences of science curriculum reform movement, and new approach quickly eclipsed older social studies commitment to political socialization and transmission of values. The humanists, it seemed, were willing to throw over historic distinction between what C.P. Snow called cultures while hardly questioning social implications of new educational reforms. Today we inhabit an entirely different educational environment-one in which tide has turned sharply away from science teaching as core of liberal studies. Indeed, we can sense a disturbing tendency among educators and parents alike to abandon intellectual goals of past two decades in favor of a return to rote learning of skills and teaching of traditional values. This trend sounds ominously reminiscent of abortive life-adjustment movement of 1930s and 1940s. Few educators would argue that science curriculum reform movement of 1960s was sufficiently sensitive to social needs, but new atmosphere threatens to undermine solid intellectual gains of period, and this current mood may limit our opportunities to develop new educational approaches that combine perspectives from both sciences and humanities. As I see it, integration of science and social science teaching has not yet gone far enough. The reforms of 1960s exposed social science educator to substance and methods of science and in so doing brought increased intellectual rigor to social studies classroom. Enormous gains were made in introduction of social science methods and in exposing students to new ways of analyzing social world. The old, narrow focus on history and geography was now broadened to include perspectives drawn from anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and economics, and with these new disciplines came an issueoriented and less ethnocentric approach to study of human behavior. With it also came fragmentation and a diffusion of focus to point that it became increasingly difficult to identify a unifying purpose for social studies teaching. The time has now come, therefore, to reintegrate disciplines, not by a return to outworn socializing methods of past, but by reorganizing social studies curriculum around scientific study of human behavior. Only through a further integration of science and social studies teaching can this objective be achieved.