Learningand teaching biological evolution in schools has experienced variouschallenges such as social controversies and pedagogical challenges. Most of the evolution claims have been based on the creationisttheory and evidence with minimal emphasizes on concepts such asscientific theories and beliefs. Therefore, for a betterunderstanding of the biological evolution of human being, scientificevidence should be considered because it complements the Biblicalinterpretations of creation tales.
Forinstance, Mudge in chapter two “those Kansas fossilized footprints”discusses the impression he got from the simple fossilizedfootprints. Although he had wide knowledge on the geology developmenthistory, he discovered some misreporting by some of the 19thcentury geologists, (Mudge, 2013). For instance, he says that “the19thcentury geologists argued that the Noah’s Flood was quiet and didnot leave any crucial geological effects.” In their attempt topreserve the creation history, these geologists were forced to givesuch evidence and admit that they could not identify the Noah’sFlood effects on the environment. The creationist literature also didnot report anything about the effects of the Noah’s flood. Fossilfoots prints gives crucial information on the planet antiquity thatscientific creationist paradigm does not reveal.
Further,Stephen and Christopher Smith recall the pilgrimages ofunderstandings since their youth. From the beginning, they werebombarded with scientific creationist perspective that made thembelieve that God was the creator of the universe. Dr. Godfreyrecounts his descriptive Pathologists researches and the exponentialshift of paradigms he achieved through his discoveries in his questfor understanding what was taught based on the evidence he wasuncovering. On the other hand, Dr. Smith recalls that integrating hisbackground and literacy studies training with his work ininterpretation of the Bible necessitated his new bible understanding,specifically the initial chapters of the book of genesis (creationstory). Dr. Godfrey and Smith’s book suggest an alternative way ofinterpreting and understanding the relationship between the bible andnatural history, (Godfrey & Smith, 2005). Therefore, theyrecommend the books for teaching students on the integration betweenthe biblical (creationist evolution) and scientific inquiry to thebiological evolution story.
Additionally,in his book “the language of God” Collins assert that refutingthe theory of evolution is an untenable view based on geneticscience. He explains the importance of combing the creationist theorywith genetic science in the human evolution understanding. For him asa religious believer, uncovering the sequence of human genome wasadditional information in the biological evolution understanding. Thechapter describes the DNA language that God used in creating humanbeings. Genomes study inexorably concludes of the common ancestorthat humans and other living things share, (Collins, 2006). Due tothe creationist influence, there is little public acceptance of thegenome evidence in the evolution theory in the United States.Therefore, Collins primary recommendation is the inclusion of hisfamous human genome project in the study of biological evolution inschools and colleges. He argues that the genetic research isincreasingly technical but its description is understandable and thuscan be used as additional information in explaining DNA language inhumans and other animals.
JasonWiles describes the role of changes in the natural world(environment) in the diversity of human life. He follows closely theevolution theory of Charles Darwin to show evidence thoseenvironmental changes over time affect human evolution and that thesechanges should be integrated in the biblical interpretations for abetter evolution understanding (Wiles, 2010).
Inconclusion therefore, in relation to evolution teaching, all theseviews should be embraced for better understanding of the scientificknowledge field. Creation story alone does not give enough evidenceto the biological evolution therefore, scientific knowledge iscrucial in the natural world observation and formulation testable andrefutable hypotheses in explaining observable phenomena in theevolution theory.
Collins,F. S. (2006). Thelanguage of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief.New York: Free Press.
Godfrey,S. J., & Smith, C. R. (2005). Paradigmson pilgrimage: Creationism, paleontology, and biblicalinterpretation.Toronto, Ont: Clements Pub.
IAPStatement on the teaching of evolution. (November 01,2006). Resonance:Journal of Science Education, 11, 11,93-95.
Mudge,B. F. (January 01, 2013). Recent Discoveries of Fossil Footprints in Kansas.Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1872-1880), 2, 71-74.
Wiles,J. R. (January 01, 2010). Overwhelming Scientific Confidence in and Its Centrality in Science Education–And the PublicDisconnect. ScienceEducation Review,9, 1,18-27.