CHAPTER 6 Discussion 85
6.9 Evolution is Just a Theory 97
Many learners referred to evolution as “just a theory” and questioned why it was being taught if it was just a theory and had not been proven yet. This is another misconception
98 that learners and teachers have. Learners see evolution as a theory that needs to be proven and do not recognise that there is scientific evidence to support the theory or that it is scientifically accepted as ‘truth’. This stems from the misunderstanding between the scientific meaning of the word theory and the more common colloquial use of the term. The American heritage dictionary of the English language defines a theory as follows:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The common use of the term ‘theory’ outside of the science community implies that a theory is speculative, that it is just a “guess”. This is how it seems that most learners view the theory of evolution. Moore (2008) explains that how teachers teach evolution can instigate and worsen this problem. “Evolution is only a theory” is a common statement that teachers also use. This statement suggests that evolution is only a hunch or a guess that is insignificant and easily dismissed because they do not recognise evidence to support evolution, and they do not show learners that a scientific theory explains facts (Moore, 2008). Blackwell et al., (2003) state: that to regard evolution as ‘just a theory’ shows a misunderstanding of the nature of a scientific theory. It also raises issues with evidence for evolution and thus adds doubt when regarding evolution (Dotger et al., 2009).
Teacher B explained that he is only a facilitator of the THEORY of evolution, and that a theory is just an explanation based on perceived evidence. Introducing evolution as ‘just a theory’ to learners resulted in a barrier to accepting and learners wanting to learn about evolution. Learners felt that because of the controversial nature of evolution and that it is
‘only a theory’, it should not be included in the curriculum. In an effort to “downplay” the significance of evolution and its obvious clashes with religious beliefs which can antagonise learners, teachers, often intentionally, “play” on the term “theory”. This ‘playing’ with terminology is an indication that teachers do not fully understand misconceptions or are not able to deal with misconceptions associated with evolution. Thus teachers think that if they convince learners that they are only learning an unproven, not-fact-yet theory, that learners
99 will feel less threatened by the content because it does not go against beliefs or cultures because it is ‘only a theory’. According to results, this incorrect use of the term ‘theory’ has had a negative effect on learner’s attitude towards learning about and accepting evolution.
This does, however, require more research as not much literature exists which supports or explores this phenomenon, and much of what is speculated in this paragraph is based on personal encounters with a number of different teachers from various schools.
Both the teachers at this school are well educated with University degrees and many years of experience in senior positions at various schools. Their general education and knowledge about the subject they teach would not come into question, but neither teacher has had a specific course in evolution. With their educational backgrounds they would be competent in self-teaching much of the evolutionary concepts. Both teachers show a good understanding of the main concepts. What does come into question is their knowledge about the misconceptions about evolution and if they are aware of all of them i.e. their pedagogic content knowledge. This also questions their ability to deal with and teach evolution to avoid these misconceptions. Teachers that are fully aware of the misconceptions associated with evolution and that have been equipped with the knowledge to teach ‘around’ these misconceptions would have a class of learners that would experience far less cultural conflict and would learn and accept evolution more easily. A study done by Abrie (2010) on South African student teachers showed that 70% of the student teachers felt that they were adequately prepared to teach evolution with little or no training on the topic of evolution. The same student teachers showed a poor understanding and harboured misconceptions. In another study done on teachers by Brem and Griffith (2004) found that teachers felt that they were not confident in their knowledge of evolution because they had never studied a specific course in evolution. Their lack of confidence was rooted in the unexpected social and personal implications and situations that they felt unequipped to deal with. The teachers in the Brem and Griffith study agreed that refresher courses on up to date material would increase their confidence and ultimately their comfort level in class. Rutledge and Mitchell (2002) as well as Abrie (2010) also suggest that improving teachers’ academic backgrounds will improve the quality of teaching in the classroom. Stears (2011) suggests that it is not only teacher understanding of evolutionary
100 concepts that should be focused on in improving teaching quality, but also improving teachers’ ability to deal with conflicts and improving teacher understanding of the nature of science. Rutledge and Mitchell (2002) link an improved academic background with an improved understanding of the nature of science and thus teachers are able to better differentiate between a scientific theory and strongly religious views i.e. the first step in improving learner understanding and acceptance of evolution is to improve the understanding that teachers have of evolutionary biology.