Search

Efforts by state and local officials to enact balanced treatment laws represent attempts to displace the methodological naturalism of science with theological supernaturalism. Advocates of creation science and intelligent design (ID) also seek to wedge the supernatural into scientific explanations. Robert Pennock (2000) distills the controversy to its core features when he states, "debate [is] about truth itself and how we come to know it" (p. 40). In this article I assume methodological naturalism as a presupposition in modern science. This is in agreement with the decision handed down by Judge John E. Jones III in the Dover, Pennsylvania ID case. Citing trial testimony from well-known philosophers of science, Jones (2005) wrote, "Methodological naturalism is a 'ground rule' of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify" (p. 65). Legal challenges to the teaching of evolution as a process explicable by naturalistic causes or to exclusive reliance on naturalism in science would alter science education by redefining science. Langdon Gilkey (1985) notes that these challenges pose additional threats. First, such laws would establish a particular form of Christian religion in the science classroom. This threatens free religious life in our society as well as freedom from religion. Second, such laws attack academic freedom. States often legislate what subjects are to be taught in the curriculum, but they should not dictate which theories are to be taught within these mandated subjects (pp. 13-14). Attacks on the nature of science should motivate us to teach not only that science adds to our body of knowledge but also to emphasize how it does this. In what follows, I set forth an interactive activity titled "Epistemology and the Nature of Science" designed for this purpose. Epistemology is the formal study of the nature and limits of human knowledge. It includes careful assessments of the limitations of the methods we employ when we make claims about what it is we know. The interactive activity helps students realize that the body of knowledge we associate with science is established using specific epistemic methods. I begin with a brief description of the format of the activity, which involves constructivist listening and the dyad. Following this, in Part I, I canvas how student responses reflect and fail to reflect major ways of knowing and their relation to science. In Part II, I use Judge William Overton's list of the characteristics of science--from the 1982 Arkansas creation trial--to focus discussion specifically on the nature of science. Constructivist Listening & the Dyad I developed Epistemology and the Nature of Science as an interactive activity for use with my Grade 9 students six years ago. Currently, I use it for my Grade 8 Pre-AP Introduction to Chemistry, Physics, and Earth Sciences course and my Grade 9 Pre-AP Biology and regular Biology classes. I have also used it with adults who teach science and math for Grades 5-12 for professional development. Central to this activity are the concepts of constructivist listening and the dyad. Constructivist listening is a process that allows one to talk without being interrupted and thereby to explore thoughts in an unimpeded manner. Talking can be as important to the learning process as listening. This is evident when teachers use questioning strategies that encourage students to talk through solutions for particular problems. Teachers often say they didn't really learn a subject in depth until they had to teach others. This may be due, in part, to the fact that teachers must talk about their subject areas. Constructivist listening is not a conversation or dialogue. Listening is really for the benefit of the speaker. It allows the speaker to explore content or feelings without being interrupted. The dyad is one structure that promotes constructivist listening. …