No. 190 

SCIENCE EDUCATION ITS METHODS AND PURPOSE

by Richard B. Bliss, Ed.D.

 

that the search for knowledge and understanding of the

physical universe and of living things that inhabit it should be

conducted under conditions of intellectual freedom, without

religious, political, or ideological restrictions ... that freedom

of inquirv and dissemination of ideas require that those so

engaged be free to search where their inquiry leads ... without

political censorship and vhthout fear of retribution in

consequence of unpopularity of their conclusions. Those who

challenge existing theories must be protected from retaliatory

reactions." (National Academy - Resolution 1976.)'

The foregoing portion of "An Affirmation of Freedom of

Inquiry and Expression," put forth by the National Academy of

Sciences in April 1976, should be the basis on which all scientific

endeavor is founded.

Quality science education depends upon recognizing

this commitment. Without freedom to inquire, the scientific

enterprise would be ruled by intimidation rather than

understanding through inquiry. If we don't help students develop

sound investigative skills at a very early age, there is no reason

to believe that students will be able to think critically and

scientifically as they grow older.2

This approach was determined in the 1960's to be teaching

good science by a project funded by the American Association for

the Advancement of Science. Entitled "Science: A Process

Approach"'3 it utilized eleven basic skills necessary to implement

good science. These skills are, in effect, the underlying

components of what is frequently called the "Scientific Method of

Reasoning." These eleven major processes, which have been

identified as involving the great majority of student (and

scientific) activities, were implemented. They include

obseruation, classification, inferring, predicting, measuring,

communicating, interpreting data, makin_q operational definitions,

formulating questions and hypotheses, experimenting, and

formulating models. Most of these eleven process skills are used

and agreed upon by all science educators as desirable outcomes for

learners of science.

When students are given the opportunity to explore freely

aspects of the world and scientific endeavor, such as diversity,

change, continuity, interaction, organization, and limitation

(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction),4 then the skills of

science can be learned in an easy and exciting manner.

These conceptual schemes, combined with hands-on activities,

provide the framework for learning in science, but even beyond

that, they become the platform for critical thought and

open-mindedness. An expansion of the six concepts listed below,

developed by renowned science educator Paul De Hart Hurd, would

allow for an enormous number of student experiences in every area

of science and at every level of science instruction.5

1. All matter is composed of units called fundamental

particles.

2. Matter exists in the form of units which can 15e

classified into hierarchies of organizational levels.

3. The behavior of matter in the universe can be described

on a statistical basis, units of matter interact, and

the basis of all ordinary interactions are either

electromagnetic, gravitational, or nuclear forces.

4. All interacting units of matter tend toward the

equilibrium states in which energy content is a minimum

and the energy distribution is most random, and the sum

of energy and matter in the universe remains constant.

5.

6. One of the forms of energy is the motion of units of

matter. All matter exists in time and space, and, since

interactions occur among these units, matter is subject,

in some degree, to changes with time.

This approach to science education inherently focuses on the

foundational concepts needed for literacy in science, as well as

giving a clear understanding of what science offers. The only

restrictions on answers to scientific questions are scientific.

The student must learn that science implies "freedom of inquiry

and dissemination of ideas" and not censorship. Science education

should teach: "a respect for logic, a desire to search for data, a

longing for knowledge and understanding, a consideration of

consequences, a consideration of premises, a demand for verifica-

tion, and to question all things."6

It is wrong when science education takes on the role of

programming young minds toward a particular philosophical

viewpoint rather than experimental observation, but that is what

is being done today by evolutionary naturalists. Evolution is

merely a philosophical view of history and life, and it is

destined to destroy the credibility of the scientific enterprise,

should it continue to be programmed into generations of students'

minds as fact. Evolution can never qualify as a legitimate theme

of science because of its philosophical stretch beyond the reality

of scientific exploration. Making evolution one of the "Big

Ideas" of science could only be proposed by philosophically biased

scientists who have decided they want their viewpoint to dominate,

not because it has any value in science education or proof in

empirical science.

In spite of evolution's continued scientific failure, it

persists among many scientists and others. Some scientists

believe in evolution by conscious choice, but most believe it

because they are under the mistaken impression that there is no

viable alternative. Evolution is not the best explanation for:

the diversification of life forms; the direction of change in any

organism; the observations in the fossil and living record

showing stasis; the observations related to interactions and

systems; the idea of scale and structure, etc. One ought to

recognize some of the failures that result from this belief in

evolution, such as the following fallacious textbook teachings:

Stanley Miller and Urey's experiment with "reducing atmospheres,"

which the scientific evidence indicates never has existed (NASA -

Joel Levine Report);7 "embryonic recapitulation," which has no

basis in factual science;8 "the evolution of the horse," which is

now widely recognized as a so-called "bush" instead of a family

"tree";9 "molecular homology," which has been totally falsified as

an evidence for evolution;'o and many others which continue to be

taught to students as factual science and provide the classic

arguments for evolution theory.

If evolution becomes the only "Big Idea" that can be brought

to bear on the subject of the origin of life and the overall theme

of science education, then all children in the public schools of

America are destined to be brainwashed in a philosophy of science

that cannot stand the rigorous test of scientific falsification,

repeatability, or verification. We have, in this case, taken away

the right of our students to think creatively and critically.

This is not only unconscionable, but harmful, and certainly not

in keeping with the proper method, mode, and purpose of science

education for our public school system.

Perhaps we can conclude with the four components of a "Full

Science for Decision Makers" program proposed by Dr. Mary Budd

Rowe:"

ACTIONS/APPLICATIONS

Can we honestly say to students and parents that we are

implementing this exemplary approach to science education when

science framework writers insist that students must be taught with

the failed dogma of evolution as science's unifying principle? The

objective and open-minded science educator must say "No!" Let us

teach children how to learn and to be critical thinkers by

developing in them the skills of scientific inquiry that are tried

and proven, and clearly in keeping with the "Affirmation of

Freedom of Inquiry and Expression."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1- "An Affirmation of Freedom of Inquiry and Expression,"

National Academy of Sciences Resolution, April 1976.

2. John Renner, Don Stafford, William Ragan, Teaching Science in

the Elementary School, Harper & Row, pp. 88,89, 1973.

3. W. Kyle, Ronald Bonnstetter, Thomas Gadsden, "An

Implementation Study: An Analysis of Elementary Students and

Teachers Attitudes toward Science in Process Approach versus

Traditional Science Classes," Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, Vol. 25, Issue 2, February 1988.

4. William C. Kahl, State Superintendent, A Guide to Science

Curriculum Deuelopment, Wisconsin Department of Public

Instruction, Bulletin No. 161, 1967.

5. Paul De Hart Hurd, Theor_v into Action, "Toward a Theory of

Science Education Consistent with Modern Science," National

Science Teachers Association, 1962.

6. Thomas M. Weiss, The Spirit of Science (NARST, Vol. 53, No.

4.)

7. J. Levine, New Ideas about the Early Atmosphere, NASA Special

Report, No. 225, Langley Research Center, August 11, 1983.

8. Sir Gavin de Beer, Homology; An Unsolued Problem (London),

Oxford University Press, 1971.

9. G. Hardin, Nature and Man's Fate, pp. 225 226, 1960.

10. M. Denton, Euolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler,

Bethesda, Maryland, 1986.

11. Mary Budd Howe, "Full Science for Decision Makers," in Third

Sourcebook for Science Superuisors, La Moine L. Motz and

Gerry Madrazo, Jr. (Editors), 1988.