Comment

Comment by Theresa Coble on January 23, 2013 at 11:51pm

Sandy, I appreciate your willingness to share details of your  experiences at various NPS sites. I have had students who lean toward "young earth creationism" in my campus-based class at SFA on climate change. In my case, the point of class discussions wasn't to outline geologic processes and timelines per se, but rather to showcase important changes that have occurred over millenia (yes), but more importantly in recent thousands or hundreds of years. We also looked at evidence that suggested that these currently observable trends will likely affect our future and those of our children/grandchildren. Rather than staying at the geology level, I was able to shift the discussion toward a consideration of recent data and trends, and a discussion about sustainability, ethics and stewardship. So far that has worked, but then again, my class focus is different than "interpreting karst geology."

Have you seen Kim Sikoryak's TEL Broadcast notes from 2005 on Interpreting Controversy? Perhaps they will provide additional angles from which to view the "anti-science" challenge...

Comment by Sandy Brue on January 20, 2013 at 10:23am

Thanks for your thought provoking comments.  I will check out the Smithsonian's January dialogue program,  sounds intriguing.  I was caught by this article on Zack Kopplin and suggested it for discussion here because the topic of creationism came up with visitors while I was working in both Missouri and Kentucky. 

While working for Ozark Scenic Riverways in Van Buren, Missouri our interpretive division offered educational programs for classroom teachers.  This park had extensive karst topography throughout and a dramatic cave system.  We had parents strongly object to our offering their children any scientific programming with a geological time frame that contradicted the time frame they had interpreted from the Bible.  This also came up when our interpreters gave evening campground programs.  Some teachers did not want our interpreters in their classroom as they felt the same.

While working for Abraham Lincoln Birthplace NHP in Kentucky, which is just off U.S. Hwy. 65 running north to Florida we had vacationing visitors see our signs and stop by who had been to the Creationist Museum in Ohio.  Again, we were part of the karst system that incorporates Mammoth Cave.  There is a small cave and the spring on site that sustained the Lincoln's while living there and waysides that discuss karst.  We had our interpretation of science challenged by those that believed differently.

I think the idea of breaking down the topic into "points of interest" is excellent.  The challenge is for our interpreters to be prepared to provide a format for visitors to engage in this type of discussion.  I found some visitors arrived ready for confrontation.  It takes training and much discussion for staff to be prepared to have an open discussion with visitors on this subject. 

I wonder if anyone else has had experience discussing this topic with visitors? 

 

Comment by Theresa Coble on January 17, 2013 at 10:37pm

Hi Sandy,

Doug has cued me into the fact that you are his mother-in-law. Doug and John Morris have told me they regard you as an inspirational leader in the NPS and I am grateful that you are helping us launch and promote SHINEnet.

Thanks for calling our attention to Zack Kopplin's efforts to keep science front and center in science classrooms. I wholeheartedly agree with that goal because it supports the critical need to strengthen scientific literacy and understanding of what we can know (and how we can know it) through science. That said, I think there are plenty of forums where we can discuss "science and religion"--and the high school science classroom is not the place. Maybe the high school philosophy or humanities classroom could/should broach that topic?

My understanding is that the Smithsonian's January "dialogue program" is on the topic of science and religion, and that it is a frequent topic that they address using debate and public dialogue. I also think that when discussing creationism versus evolution is it very helpful to break the topics down. Rather than discuss evolution writ large, there can be many "points of access" to the set of ideas and explanations that get lumped together as "evolution." For example, folks can talk about niches, speciation, adaptation, adaptive radiation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. It's possible to establish a common ground of scientific understanding before (and perhaps distinct from) discussions about origins, the fossil record, and the primordial soup to intelligent life transitions. It's the latter topics that elicit differing and impassioned beliefs about the nature of the cosmos, the mechanism by which we moved from less organized matter to more organized/more functional matter, and the presence or absence of "God" in the mix. I also think it might be helpful to approach creationism from multiple angles--is it a belief that is held in the absence of or in opposition to scientific belief? Or is it rather a belief in who God is and what God does that then must be examined in juxtaposition to what we learn via scientific investigation? I think that this latter approach is a lot of work, but I think every worldview is/should be a lot of work because knowledge and experience are not static. Given that not everyone sees inherent or irreconcilable conflicts between evolution and creationism, and given that there's a lot that we don't know about ancient environments/processes, I think there may be value in helping folks at all levels (maybe even high schoolers) to think more broadly about these questions--including the limitations of our knowledge and pinpointing instances where we might want to adopt a less dogmatic approach. Could dogma derailing inquiry be the very thing we have to guard against in all sectors of life? That and establishing a mutual respect for those with differing beliefs? If so, then perhaps the evolution vs. creationism debate (while it shouldn't hold science curricula hostage) could be a fruitful avenue for mutual learning and understanding at the societal level.

Cheers,
Theresa