No. 207 - A FAILED ATTEMPT AT STUDENT BRAINWASHING

by Richard Bliss, Ed.D.*

In recent years our youth have been overwhelmed with a sea of

evolutionary propaganda. Sadly, the objective seems to be to

program their young minds toward evolution only, so that they will

believe, without questioning, that all kinds of organisms have

evolved by natural processes and were not created by God.

Recent studies, however, are showing that these efforts, even

with all the media and money behind them, are failing. In spite

of all the force feeding of evolution, the theory of evolution

seems to be failing to survive among those who are free to think

objectively.

Consider the results of a study published in the very

prestigious Journal of Research in Science Teaching, a journal

long noted for its accuracy in reporting research in science

education. This recent (1990) research paper, by Beth A. Bishop

and Charles W. Anderson, entitled "Student Conceptions of Natural

Selection and its Role in Evolution" indicated that, in spite of

intensive programing in a college "non-majors' biology" course, it

is extremely difficult to get students to understand how

evolution works. "Although the students in this case had taken an

average of 1.9 years of previous biology courses, performance on

the pretest was uniformly low."

After taking the course, the students were tested again, but

they showed no significant improvement in understanding evolution.

As one can imagine, this experience would be particularly

frustrating to evolutionists. Perhaps the most startling factor

is that the focus of the study was on "natural selection as a

mechanism for evolution." Now this does not seem like a terribly

difficult concept to understand on its face, but it appears that

the college students studied could not comprehend these long-held

and extensively taught concepts. Evolutionists have apparently

made the concept of evolution so confusing that a thinking student

isn't sure exactly what he is supposed to be learning.

In this study, the experimenters started out with the

postulate that evolution is the unifying framework for modern

biology. Without a complete understanding of evolution, they say

a student cannot comprehend biology. With this idea as a

foundation, the researchers set out to find reasons why the

intelligent non-biology major in college cannot understand

scientific evolutionary mechanisms. The three main purposes of

their study were as follows:

1. "To describe, as completely as possible, the conceptions held

by college non science majors concerning the mechanism of

natural selection and the factors responsible for

evolutionary change."

At the very outset, any knowledgeable person who has studied

origins knows that there is much argument about the notion

that natural selection has any effect at all on

macro-evolution (Lewin, 1980, 1982; Agaia, 1975-, L.H. Mat-

thews, 1971; Smith, 1982; Rifkin, 1983; Martin, 1953-,

Salisbury, 1969). An objective look at this purpose for the

study immediately suggests a possible reason for an

intelligent student rejecting, or not understanding, the

rationale behind natural selection as a suggested mechanism

for evolution. The experimenters should not have been

surprised that programing a rational mind in this direction

could be very troublesome.

2. "To assess the effects of instruction (including both

previous high school and college biology instruction and our

college non-majors' biology course) on the conceptions held

by students. "

This interesting purpose for the study indicates the intense

concern of the evolutionist. Here they are, identifying

those who do not comprehend evolutionism, so they can set

them up for more intense programing procedures. This is

exactly what a psychologist would do if he wanted to

brainwash a mind away from undesirable ideas. This type of

objective could well become the tool for future brainwashing

techniques.

3. "To determine whether student conceptions of natural

selection were associated with student belief in the theory

of evolution as historical fact."

This objective clearly places the student on the line. Are

they believers in evolution or are they not? If they are

believers, do they know what they must believe about natural

selection and its implications as a mechanism for evolution?

If they are not believers, then what education practices and

programing will make them believers? In other words, those

who teach evolution are faced with the task of making

instructional adjustments. Consequently, adjustments were

made in this study that were designed to ensure that the

student would come to believe that natural selection leads to

the fact of evolution.

The study began by extracting what the researchers believed

to be the essential content of evolution and natural selection

from the lecture material and the required text (not named) of

the course.

After a series of pilot testing, the final criterion referenced

test was selected for the study and reported on in the Journal of

Research in Science Teaching. A sample of part of the diagnostic

test is given as follows:

1. Cheetahs (large African cats) are able to run faster than 60

miles per hour, when chasing prey. How would a biologist

explain how the ability to run fast evolved in cheetahs,

assuming their ancestors could run only 20 miles per hour?

2. Cave salamanders are blind (they have eyes which are

non-functional). How would a biologist explain how blind

cave salamanders evolved from sighted ancestors?

3. a) The trait of webbed feet in ducks:

(1 = only left statement correct; 5 = only right statement

correct; 3 = both statements equally correct) Appeared in

ancestral ducks 1 2 3 4 5 Appeared in ducks because of

because they lived in water and a chance mutation.

needed webbed feet to swim.

Explain:

b. While ducks were evolving webbed feet:

With each generation, most 1 2 3 4 5 ducks had about the same

amount of webbing on their feet as their parents.

Explain:

c) If a population of ducks was forced to live in an

environment where water for swimming was not available:

Many ducks would die because 1 2 3 4 5 The ducks would gradually

With each generation, most ducks had a tiny bit more webbing on

their feet than their parents.

their feet were poorly adapted to this environment.

Explain:

develop non-webbed feet.

 

d) The populations of ducks evolved webbed feet because:

The more successful ducks 1 2 3 4 5 The less successful ducks died

adapted to their aquatic without offspring. environment.

Explain:

The researchers were diligent in pursuing their objective to

determine how to convince these college students that evolution by

natural selection was a fact, but the conclusion was

understandably disappointing to both Bishop and Anderson. After

all this effort, the researchers found that most students still

had ideas about how and why evolution occurred that were much

different from those accepted by standard biologists. These were

called naive conceptions by the researchers. A comparison of

students holding the "scientific" and "naive" understanding of the

mechanism of evolution is given in the reproduced chart below.

It appears from this study that, no matter how intensive the

instructional force toward correcting the naive view, these

college students showed unsatisfactory gains in the understanding

of evolution. In fact, non-believers appeared to understand

evolution much better than did those students who believe in

evolution! It was found, however, that intensified instruction can

cause some change in students' "naive" conceptions. The study

goes on to report. however, that "even the intensive revised

teaching methods and materials were not sufficient to help a

significant number of students."

From a creationist point of view, the most distressing part

of this research lies in the development of a diagnostic test that

focuses on a student's understanding of evolution. This kind of

testing, relating to a concept that can never stand the test of

scientific rigor, could become very dangerous to intellectual

freedom. We could easily be on the threshold of developing

brainwashed intellectual robots.

TABLE 11

Relation between Belief in Evolution and Student Conceptions:

Post-test

Percent of

Scientific Students Understanding

Issue Conception Scientific Conception

Non-

Believers Believers Unsure

(28 Students) (15 Students) (14

Students)

1. Origin and Random processes response- 50 73 64

survival of sible for appearance of traits;

new traits natural selection accounts for

survival or disappearance

2. Role of Variable population essen- 57 73 36

variation tial for evolution

within

populations

3. Evolutionary Involves changing propor- 57 80 50

change tions of individuals with

discrete traits

Inquiry is the heart of science and, from this study, it

would be easy to predict that if this freedom were given to the

college students in the study, the results would have been even

more disastrous for evolution. Studies have shown that when

students are given freedom to inquire and freedom of choice

between the evolution and creation model, they tend to choose the

creation model.

What is it, then, that drives the anti-creationist to want to

brainwash our children in the public schools? The scientific

enterprise has much to be concerned about in this blind thrust to

promote a dead theory.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ayala, Francisco J., "Scientific Hypotheses, Natural

Selection and the Neutrality Theory of Protein Evolution in

the Role of Natural Selection in Human Evolution," F.M.

Salzano Ed., North Holland Publishing Company, 1975. pp.

19-end of chapter.

2. Bliss, Richard B-, A Comparison of Two Approaches to the

Teaching of Origins of Lining Things to Hi_qh School Biology

Students in Racine, Wisconsin, ERIC File no. Ed. 152-568.

3. Lewin, Roger: "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, 21

November 1980, pp. 883-887.

4. Martin, C.P.: "A Non Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American

Scientist, Vol. 41,

p. 103.

5. Matthews, L. Harrison, D.Sc., FRS. Introduction to the

Ori_qin of Species, J.M. Dent and Sc)tis, Loiidoii, 1971.

6. Hifkin, Jeremy, Al_qeny (New York: Viking Press, 1983), p.

134.

7. Salisbury, Frank B., "Natural Selection and the Complexity of

the Gene," Nature (Vol. 224, October 24, 1969).

8. Smith, Huston, "Evolutionary Mechanisms," Christian Century

(July 7-14, 1982), p. 756.