A Mickey Mouse approach to Evolution

A Mickey Mouse approach to Evolution August 26, 2008

HOW do you begin to reverse the religious stupidification process that has left millions of Americans, and a sizeable number of Europeans and others wallowing in a nonsensical belief in creationism, or its ugly sister, “intelligent design”?
In a fascinating, albeit depressing New York Times article this week – A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash – journalist Amy Harmon concentrated on the efforts of one teacher in Florida, David Campbell, 52, who introduces evolution with pictures of Mickey Mouse.

In February, Harmon points out, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.”
Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favour religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.

But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

The poor treatment of evolution in some state education standards may reflect the public’s widely held creationist beliefs. In Gallup polls over the last 25 years, nearly half of American adults have consistently said they believe God created all living things in their present form, sometime in the last 10,000 years.
But a 2005 defeat in federal court for a school board in Dover, Pa., that sought to cast doubt on evolution gave legal ammunition to evolution proponents on school boards and in statehouses across the country.
With a mandate to teach evolution but little guidance as to how, science teachers are contriving their own ways to turn a culture war into a lesson plan. How they fare may bear on whether a new generation of Americans embraces scientific evidence alongside religious belief.

David Campbell. Photo NY Times
David Campbell. Photo NY Times
Campbell starts with Mickey Mouse.

Mickey evolved. And Mickey gets cuter because Walt Disney makes more money that way. That is ‘selection.’

Later, he gets to the touchier part, about how the minute changes in organisms that drive biological change arise spontaneously, without direction. And how a struggle for existence among naturally varying individuals has helped to generate every species, living and extinct, on the planet.
Says Campbell:

Evolution has been the focus of a lot of debate in our state this year. If you read the newspapers, everyone is arguing, ‘is it a theory, is it not a theory?’ The answer is, we can observe it. We can see it happen, just like you can see it in Mickey.

Campbell deflects public criticism that his courses do not include alternative explanations for life’s diversity, like intelligent design, thus:

We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green cheese, because those aren’t science, either.

Science explores nature by testing and gathering dataIt can’t tell you what’s right and wrong. It doesn’t address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions.

Asked by one pupil, “Is there a God?”, Campbell replies.

Can’t test it. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. It’s not a question for science.

Another pupil, Bryce, a boy of 16, from a strong Christian background, says:

But there is scientific proof that there is a God. Over in Turkey there’s a piece of wood from Noah’s ark that came out of a glacier.

Campbell chose his words carefully:

If I could prove, tomorrow, that that chunk of wood is not from the ark, is not even 500 years old and not even from the right kind of tree – would that damage your religious faith at all?”

The boy thinks for a moment, and replies “No”.
Campbell replies:

Faith is not based on science. And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ‘believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks. But I do expect you to understand it.

Bryce is unconvinced:

Evolution is telling you that you’re like an animal. That’s why people stand strong with Christianity, because it teaches people to lead a good life and not do wrong.

We wish Campbell, and teachers like him, lots of luck. They are sure as hell gonna need it!

"It's a devil of a job to please everyone!"

Outrage over two Satans: one is ..."
"The teachings are factual! They exist! Whether an actual Jesus said those things, that's another ..."

Weed pastor’s job goes up in ..."
"That's not a scientific statement. You cannot assert that NEVER will proof be found for ..."

Weed pastor’s job goes up in ..."
"What facts? I'm saying that the teachings of Jesus are good, ethical, should be followed. ..."

Weed pastor’s job goes up in ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • TERMINUS EST

    I read that article this weekend. At the end of it, the student Bryce was at least answering the questions on his quizzes and his mind seemed to have opened, if only a crack.
    I feel some small hope that the NY Times article will be used by other teachers to help them teach science. Here in the U.S., there are colleges that are starting to refuse students who haven’t been taught evolutionary theory.
    By the way, I disagree with the teacher Campbell on one point. In The God Delusion, I thought Dawkins made a very compelling argument that one can devise and test the hypothesis of whether God exists or not.

  • Angela Kingdom

    This dangerous Mickey Mouse nonsense is increasingly taught in U.K. schools by compliant teachers unwilling to challenge the superstition merchants for fear of being labelled a racist. Richard Dawkins in his excellent TV series on Darwin interviewed an imbecile of a school science teacher who said that the Bible’s version of events is correct and science is wrong – in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary! I assume – and sincerely hope – that a University degree in Biology, Chemistry or Physics is still required by teachers of these sciences, if not we are doomed to return to the stone age.

  • Interestingly, Mickey evolved in a particular way. He became more child-like as time went on, in order to make him look more cute. Stephen Jay Gould wrote more about it here:
    http://www.monmsci.net/~kbaldwin/mickey.pdf

  • Valdemar

    If this century is dominated by nations that master bioengineering (as earlier centuries were dominated by those who mastered physics and chemistry) then the US of A is clearly doomed. Pity, IMHO.

  • TERMINUS EST

    Angela Kingdom, I would like to hear more about how the Mickey Mouse analogy is used in the UK.
    In the original NY Times article, Mickey Mouse was only used as a way to draw the students into the subject, not to be taken seriously. The rest of the course a more serious discussion of evolution lasting several weeks and involving hands-on interaction with actual fossils that demonstrated evolutionary change.
    Still, I think I understand your point and agree with you. If the Mickey Mouse argument is all that a teacher teaches of evolution, they have abandoned their responsibilities as a teacher. And if they don’t have proper qualifications and use them, they have no business teaching.

  • You are an alchemist; make gold of that.