TIES that Blind

Teachers Training Students to Reject Competing Ideas

The teaching of evolution in government schools has expanded since the early 20th century, gradually replacing the earlier creation-based model of life. By 1939, about half of high school biology teachers taught evolution as a central principle of biology, and by 2019, only 12 percent offered the creation narrative as a valid alternative to evolution.

To further entrench the Darwinian story in education, the Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science (TIES) was founded in 2015 as a project of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which later merged with the secular nonprofit Center for Inquiry (CFI). Adopting the motto “teachers helping teachers,” TIES offers resources in the form of workshops, webinars, lesson plans, articles, and books focused on teaching evolution and answering critics based upon Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). TIES holds that “people who understand evolution are more likely to accept it.”

Reason for Surveillance

While TIES provides resources for up to 12th grade, its primary focus is on equipping elementary and middle school teachers, many of whom, it says, feel ill-equipped or fear backlash from religious parents. It is notable that TIES focuses on reaching younger children, given that elementary and middle school learners lack mature cognitive resources to critically evaluate the sweeping and oftentimes fallacious claims of Darwin proponents.

For example, in an interview with TIES director Bertha Vazquez, podcaster and author Rick Coste likened the evolution of organisms to the evolution of technology. Coste also explained how the evolution of flight, from the Wright brothers’ 1911 motorized flyer to the 1969 moon landing, is his favorite model of how technology evolves and changes under selection pressures, just like organisms. Those who understand the theory of intelligent design will immediately recognize the fallacious nature of Coste’s analogies—that such developments are the product of the collective intelligence of teams of engineers. The “evolution” of these technologies actually reflects products of intelligent design, not naturalistic evolution, but younger children are not likely to recognize the flaws in these analogies. Worse, with analogies such as these, undiscerning ears are inoculated against recognizing the latent design inference in Coste’s examples, or in any others.

Most Recent Offense

One lesson TIES recommends is called “Addressing Science Denial with Cranky Uncle.” Students are informed that “the modern world was built by science,” but that some people “deny science” because it conflicts with their “deeply held beliefs.” By playing Cranky Uncle, students earn points by denying outrageous claims—the “sillier or more outrageous the better!”, says the instructor, who suggests starting with “gravity is a hoax.” The game is problematic in many respects. Not only does it imply that any non-consensus view isn’t “science” (fostering groupthink), but it also trains students to respond to alternative ideas with ridicule. Apart from the rudeness and immaturity of such a response, this is inconsistent with good scientific thinking. For elementary and middle school students—who tend to be highly sensitive to peer perception—the Cranky Uncle game only heightens their fear of being labeled a “denier.” The fact that no one holds “gravity is a hoax” as a “deeply held belief” is apparently lost on the instructor.

Educators who push the evolution-only story—not only refusing to consider alternative explanations but ridiculing those who do—ultimately teach students to be poor scientists. They condition students to accept theories without critical inquiry, rather than encouraging genuine scientific exploration. One might even say they set students up for science denial.