Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Print | Comments |

Nature's Little Scientists

by Mary Carmichael - Newsweek

http://www.newsweek.com/id/224079

Charles Darwin was famously reluctant to publish On the Origin of Species, which he did 150 years ago this week. Fearing it would degrade people's religious convictions, he stalled on the manuscript for two decades. But he didn't shield his own children from the science he thought would harm adults. Instead, he enlisted them in his experiments. When they were babies, he scrutinized their faces like an anthropologist for his book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals; later, he assigned them to "sprinkle bumblebees with flour and chase after the bugs" for a study of cross-pollination, harnessing the children's curiosity as a means of teaching them about nature while also discovering some things about it himself.

What Darwin knew about kids should be obvious to anyone who has one: They make good amateur scientists. "At age 3, 4, 5, 6, all they ask is, 'What's that and where did it come from?' " says Colin Purrington, an evolutionary biologist at Swarthmore College and a father of two. So why, like Darwin the theorist, holding back his book—and unlike Darwin the dad, letting his kids loose in the lab that is the world—are so many parents and teachers loath to give kids straight, scientific answers about natural selection?

"What's that?" It's a bird. "And where did it come from?" The correct, and interesting, answer is "from a dinosaur that was well-adapted to changing conditions millions of years ago." But in a lot of schools, kids are just as likely to hear "from the sky." "I think a lot of people believe that if we can get evolution taught well in high school, we should just be happy with that, because teaching it in middle school will bring angry parents out of the woodwork," says Purrington. "As for elementary school, that's a line almost no one wants to cross."
...
Continue reading
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224079

Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 26 of 26 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #434582 by Mitch Kahle on November 24, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Children are old enough to learn about evolution when they learn the Earth is a sphere.

I'd say children should be exposed to evolution by the 4th or 5th grade.

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

2. Comment #434583 by mordacious1 on November 24, 2009 at 6:34 pm

I can't tell if the two kids in the picture are christian children. They don't look happy enough. The boy has an inquisitive look on his face...must be an atheist child.

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #434586 by MUNRO1 on November 24, 2009 at 6:36 pm

I agree Mitch

My biggest problem with statements on when it should be taught, is when they say they are too young for evolution, but old enough to decide on some of the most profound philosophical questions we have. How can a child have any idea about the meaning of life and the possibility of gods, and then which one !

Children are old enough to have the correct answers as soon as they are old enough to ask the correct questions.

Other Comments by MUNRO1

4. Comment #434589 by Bonzai on November 24, 2009 at 6:44 pm

"What's that?" It's a bird. "And where did it come from?" The correct, and interesting, answer is "from a dinosaur that was well-adapted to changing conditions millions of years ago." But in a lot of schools, kids are just as likely to hear "from the sky." "

Huh? Don't you have to tell them birds come from eggs first?

There seems to be some gaps that needed to be filled before you can go from the level "from the sky" to "from a dinosaur that was well-adapted to changing conditions millions of years ago."

I also think the second sentence may convey the wrong impression to young children that the dinosaur actually turned into a bird like a shape shifter. I wonder how much of that will sink in at 3, 4, 5, 6 years of age.

Yeah maybe I should go teach some 3, 4, 5, 6 year old kids calculus.

Other Comments by Bonzai

5. Comment #434591 by alessamendes on November 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm

While I was reading WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE, my 5-year-old niece asked if I could explain what it was that I was reading. She understood (and enjoyed) learning about how the whale evolved.

I'm sure she didn't grasp everything, but she certainly showed an interest and was even able to repeat a lot of the information quite accurately.

We don't give kids enough credit.

Other Comments by alessamendes

6. Comment #434593 by Bonzai on November 24, 2009 at 6:50 pm

Mord

Wrong thread?

Other Comments by Bonzai

7. Comment #434595 by Bonzai on November 24, 2009 at 6:53 pm

MUNROl

My biggest problem with statements on when it should be taught, is when they say they are too young for evolution, but old enough to decide on some of the most profound philosophical questions we have. How can a child have any idea about the meaning of life and the possibility of gods, and then which one !

I am not sure why you would juxtapose teaching evolution with teaching religion. What is the connection?

Kids at a very young age should be encouraged to ask questions rather than being spoon fed a lot of facts (or supposed facts in the case of religion) which they could mouth off but lack the knowledge to understand.

I think children should spend more time on unsupervised play. It is more important that they have the space and freedom to roam around like children rather than spending too much time with over protective, over controlling nerdy parents droning on about Darwin. Just my 2 cents.

Other Comments by Bonzai

8. Comment #434600 by Dhamma on November 24, 2009 at 7:03 pm

I think it's quite pointless to teach the theory of evolution before you're 15-16, as most kids have no interest and will likely forget about it later on. Unless, of course, you teach them the basics when they're very young and follow up with a more advanced understanding of it when they're about 15.

I remember when I was between seven and twelve my, very, religious teachers taught us all about the bible stories (even though it most certainly was not on the curriculum), and I forgot about most of it :) I have caught up later on, as I find the stories interesting, but my comrades were better off forgetting it.

Other Comments by Dhamma

9. Comment #434601 by Sandra S on November 24, 2009 at 7:03 pm

3. Comment #434586 by MUNRO1

Children are old enough to have the correct answers as soon as they are old enough to ask the correct questions.

I was fascinated by the universe and the size of it all before I even started first grade. And "where did it all come from?" was surely one of the first questions.

I remember distinctly that we got taught in the 2:nd or 3:rd grade about the distances between stars and galaxies as well as the Big Bang. It was probably a bit on the early side, though. I don't think many understood, Big Bang sure didn't make much sense to me.

Of course that doesn't mean that kids should be given the wrong answer. If they asks where the universe came from the correct answer isn't to tell them that an big, bearded invisible man in the sky did it, but I'm not sure they're old enough to understand the Big Bang either. I guess they're old enough to be given the right answer, but I don't think one can expect them to understand it.

I think the best thing to do would be to just teach the basics of skepticism. It is probably the most valuable thing you could teach a child.

Other Comments by Sandra S

10. Comment #434602 by Bonzai on November 24, 2009 at 7:06 pm

Sandra S

I think the best thing to do would be to just teach the basics of skepticism. It is probably the most valuable thing you could teach a child.

Finally something sensible.

Other Comments by Bonzai

11. Comment #434604 by Bonzai on November 24, 2009 at 7:18 pm

The problem with a lot of young, middle class parents is that they want to raise their children in too sheltered an environment and control too many aspects of their lives.

It is just as wrong to try to raise your kids into little atheists as it is to try to turn them into little Christians.

It is ok to tell them facts of nature at the level that they can understand, but I am horrified that some people seem to want to use evolution as a vehicle for atheism in the process of children raising, like MUNROl who said basically that if they are old enough to learn religion, they are old enough to learn evolution. What does one have to do with the other?

Children are not soldiers for waging ideological wars!

How about just let them be, and provide some guidance and gentle nudging when it is needed? At a very young age children should be given the opportunity to explore their environment and doing things with their hands through playing. There is the knowledge of the body as well as the body of the mind. Children gain knowledge of the body through doing stuffs.

End of rant.

Other Comments by Bonzai

12. Comment #434606 by Dhamma on November 24, 2009 at 7:27 pm

Children are not soldiers for waging ideological wars!

While I certainly agree, I would be horrified if any future kid of mine would grow up a christian. Especially in Sweden :)

Though you are right, we should never be allowed to push an agenda on our kids, I just think it's pretty much impossible in reality. Despite Richard's wish of not labeling children, people will not give a damn. It's sad, but can one deny it?

Other Comments by Dhamma

13. Comment #434611 by Bonzai on November 24, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Dhamma

would be horrified if any future kid of mine would grow up a christian. Especially in Sweden :)

It is easy. Raise them to be Christians and be really pushy about that too. Kids usually rebel against their pushy parents when they are old enough. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

14. Comment #434630 by Stafford Gordon on November 24, 2009 at 8:55 pm

One of our twin daughters is at Imperial College London reading Biochemistry and one is at Trinity College Cambridge reading Life Sciences.

On their sixteenth birthday I consulted with their chemistry teacher about giving them the Collector's Library edition of The Origin; she, Doctor Collington, advised me that they were perhaps a bit young, but to go ahead anyway.

When they left for their respective Universities, I noted with deep satisfaction that among the books I'd given them they took titles by Pinker, Singh, Dennett, Jones, Watson, and erm, er, Richard ah, oh you know; anyway, it's called The Selfish Gene.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

15. Comment #434640 by The_Intangible_Fancy on November 24, 2009 at 9:43 pm

I think we should be more concerned with teaching young children HOW to think as opposed to which specific facts and theories they should be memorizing.

Teach kids how to run an experiment. How to make a hypothesis. What a control group is and why it is important. Then later on we can worry about the specifics of evolution.

I remember when I was younger I did a science fair project about whether people could tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. I also compared their performance to their expectations. Most people were confident that they could tell the difference. But overall people only got it right about 50% of the time--no better than guessing. It was a pretty frivolous subject but it taught me a lot about how to set up an experiment and also about human psychology. And I remember it years later, even after I have forgotten most everything else I memorized in school, because I designed it myself and I had fun doing it.

That is what science education needs to be about.

Other Comments by The_Intangible_Fancy

16. Comment #434658 by rod-the-farmer on November 24, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Re The_Intangible_Fancy and comment #15

Agreed. I am of the opinion that once you teach children the scientific method, it will change the way they look at everything they encounter in the world, after that.

Anyone here not understand why it was the Tree of Knowledge that Adam & Eve were forbidden to eat from ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

17. Comment #434683 by -dr- on November 24, 2009 at 11:16 pm

In the Newsweek comments section, there’s an interesting “tutorial” on the Scientific Method and how evolution “fails” its criteria. The mind boggles.

David in Toronto

Other Comments by -dr-

18. Comment #434703 by sillygirl on November 25, 2009 at 12:23 am

One of the topics that interests little children the most is animals. If you have honest, child-led discussions about animals, it organically leads to discussions of evolution. They may only understand part of it, but it is pointless to wait until they already understand.

Other Comments by sillygirl

19. Comment #434704 by Demotruk on November 25, 2009 at 12:27 am

I was very young when I learned about evolution, through dinosaur magazines. I had a thorough understanding many years before briefly coming across it in secondary school.

So yes, kids can very much understand natural selection at a young age, and it's something that is conducive to an interest in science (dinosaurs interested me far more than any other aspect of biology).

Other Comments by Demotruk

20. Comment #434712 by mordacious1 on November 25, 2009 at 12:50 am

6. Comment #434593 by Bonzai

I'm a cross-threader. I was referring to the kids in the picture that accompanies this article. On the other thread the author stated that the children were happy because they were christian children. These kids don't look that happy, so they can't be christian. Christian kids always look happy. Oh well, Joke=balloon=lead=crash.

Other Comments by mordacious1

21. Comment #434739 by steveroot on November 25, 2009 at 2:36 am

20. Comment #434712 by mordacious1 on November 25, 2009 at 12:50 am
Oh well, Joke=balloon=lead=crash.

If it helps, I got it. :-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

22. Comment #434742 by shaunfletcher on November 25, 2009 at 2:51 am

You arent about to give a 5 year old a copy of tgsoe or origin, but it does no end of good to both answer their questions with simple but truth based answers, and to show them the wonderful world about them at a level they can understand.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

23. Comment #434796 by mixmastergaz on November 25, 2009 at 10:59 am

The apparent 'viciousness' of natural selection (along with the usual faith baloney) is a sticking-point for some parents that the article raises and with which I agree. I think raising the question of when a child is taught about religion (almost certainly their parents' religion) is relevant to this discussion. I'm going to speak from personal experience working on the presumption that my experiences aren't so very unusual. I was taught all the 'nice' stuff about my parents' religion when I was very young, but they withheld teaching about hell until I was older.

I think we romanticise childhood and peer at it through rose-tinted spectacles. Kids can be as vicious, mean-spirited, competitive and aggressive as anybody else. The only difference is that they have an excuse. I think some of the fears of parents who might object to teaching evolution to young children stem from a desire to preserve the sort of childhood innocence in their kids which never really existed in the first place! Objecting to the teaching of evolution on these grounds is an emotional rather than a rational response, which is why it's so persuasive to so many, and also why it's no kind of good reason at all.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

24. Comment #434800 by hayden_scott on November 25, 2009 at 11:27 am

The problem with a lot of young, middle class parents is that they want to raise their children in too sheltered an environment and control too many aspects of their lives.

Is this based on some survey?

It is just as wrong to try to raise your kids into little atheists as it is to try to turn them into little Christians.

I don't think it's wrong to raise your children to reach views based on available evidence, with the natural consequence that they are unlikely to form a belief in god(s).

I am horrified that some people seem to want to use evolution as a vehicle for atheism in the process of children raising, like MUNRO1 ...

I have never come across such a situation. More to the point, MUNRO1's comment provides no such example.

MUNRO1 who said basically that if they are old enough to learn religion, they are old enough to learn evolution. What does one have to do with the other?

I don't exactly know what MUNRO1's intended point was, but I suspect it was something along the following lines: if a parent considers a child old enough to absorb religious bullshit, then the same child should be considered old enough to learn about reality as explained by science; it's not that religion and science are equivalent, but that a mental capacity for learning about the concepts of a religion means there is a sufficient mental capacity for learning about science.

Who said they are? Moreover, why should teaching your children about what science has to say about our origins be taken to involve such.

How about just let them be, and provide some guidance and gentle nudging when it is needed

This approach - if parents decide upon it - is not inconsistent with teaching children the things that science explains.

Other Comments by hayden_scott

25. Comment #435114 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2009 at 7:06 pm

You know, I'm not a parent (I'm not sure how much step-parent counts) but I was once a child and I remember pretty clearly how it felt to be a child. I get really, really depressed and frustrated at what seems to be a perennial flaw in the minds of many parents. That flaw is to imagine that their precious darlings can't handle the truth. I was pretty young when I first heard about evolution and when I did it fascinated me. I was even younger when I first started to learn about astronomy and I taught myself about it because I found it really interesting.

The biggest irony of the misguided cossetting attitude so many parents have is that many of them think their kids' tender young minds are not ready to learn about things like evolution but they can sure find out about things like sin and hell and eternal punishment. That stuff's okay.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

26. Comment #435358 by megacephalanthropus on November 26, 2009 at 6:33 am

Through my personal inquiry, I had grasped the concept of evolution at age 9 (Gr4) & wanted to be a paleoanthropologist at the time. I was surprised by the number of adults who mistook 'paleoanthropologist' fo 'paleontologist'.

Other Comments by megacephalanthropus

Reload Comments | Back to Top