They Should Stop Shooting Shoemakers Too, Shouldn't They?

Abstract

THE IDEA OF FREEDOMS, in general, and freedom in teaching, in particular, has stretched the intellect and tried the courage of humans since the dawn of their recorded history. It is not my intent here to repeat the well-known polemics of freedoms; rather, I will summarize some major contemporary actions to secure anew the elusive freedoms that are inherent in successful science teaching. Successful science teaching must be supported by the same freedoms that are demanded by any intellectually honest endeavor. In a nutshell, good science teaching must involve scientific (objective) inquiry of the job at hand. Thus, the scientific approach to teaching differs from the non-scientific approach in that the former develops ideas based on factual data rather than on personal feelings and beliefs. As opposed to the databased scientific approach to teaching, the non-scientific approach may be labeled as and success, as determined by the learning response, depends not on inquiry, but rather on the absence of objective inquiry and methodology. Obviously, these two approaches to teaching are very different. But each has its place, and a society must provide for such divergencies. Conflict between the two approaches is inevitable, however, when concepts amenable to one teaching method are taught by the other. It is as Preston Cloud (1977) noted concerning the teaching dilemma posed by the science-religious fundamentalism dichotomy . .that treating these two very different modes of thought as if they were susceptible to similar treatment in the framework of science (is) . . a distortion of both science and religion. Scientific and indoctrinaire persuasions exist together, both in individuals and society, and to expect either the individual or society to achieve a resolution of the inherent conflicts between them would be unrealistic. Nevertheless, both individuals and societies have from time immemorial taken strong stands on scientific-indoctrinaire controversies. Historically, the rhetoric of either side has failed to receive a sympathetic hearing from the other, and the controversies have resulted in a long series of stalemates between science and dogmatic religious beliefs and/or totalitarian governments. Fortunately for the survival of Homo sapiens, the ultimate goal of a checkmate has yet to be achieved in these controversies. During modern times, many of those in the United States who advocate that the teaching of science should be oriented toward the scientific method have attempted to resolve their conflicts with dogmatic indoctrinarians by legal means. Briefly, it is held that the freedom to teach science by inquiry rather than by doctrines involving specific feelings and beliefs is guaranteed in law throughout the land by nothing less than the Constitution. More specifically, in cases of v. Religion, it is contended that the encroachment of religious doctrine into the content of science is prohibited, by the First Amendment clauses dealing with Free Speech and the Separation of Church and State, and the Due Process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The roots of this controversy penetrate deeply into the free society philosophy that is the foundation of the republic, itself. Perhaps the key litigation for present-day biologists and others concerned with the teaching of evolutionary science was the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Epperson v. Arkansas. In this opinion, the court invalidated the Arkansas Antievolution Law. The author is professor of biology, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tennessee. At present he is Visiting Scientist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Post Office Box 117, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830. Peterson received his B.A. degree from Luther College, Decorah, Iowa, and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He has been a consultant and writer T with the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, _I director of the NSF Institutes for High School and Biology Teachers, a Fullbright Lecturer to Uruguay, and represented the U.S. Department of State as a Specialist to India for biology teachers. Peterson is president of the National Association of Biology Teachers, and a member of the AAAS, AIBS, the American Academy for Microbiology, and the Asian Association for Biological Education, and has published a number of articles in ABT, BioScience, and The Science Teacher. This article is based on a presentation Peterson made at the 1977 Annual Meeting of AIBS.