sign in sign up
<<
Home , 20th century in science, Abiogenesis, Biology, Organism

Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:432–435 DOI 10.1007/s12052-010-0209-1

CURRICULUM ARTICLE

Abiogenesis in Upper Secondary Curricula

Barend Vlaardingerbroek

Published online: 11 March 2010 # Springer +Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Biological and are distinct abiogenesis—represent distinct theoretical frameworks , although they are closely related in the which have developed quite separately over the past context of a holistic evolutionary conceptual framework. century and a half since the publication of Darwin’s The The relationship between evolution and abiogenesis fur- Origin of . nishes profound insights into the of science, a much School students are usually first exposed to a systematic emphasised aspect of modern science . But there study of evolution in the upper secondary . A appears to be a great deal of ambiguity about the place of of modern is to instill in students an abiogenesis in upper secondary curricula, the stage of awareness of the nature of science, including its and formal education at which students are usually first exposed , and connections among disciplines both within to evolutionary in any depth. Some official curricula and outside science (Mathews 1994). Within this frame- completely omit any reference to the issue, others fleetingly , it is of critical importance that students are cognizant touch on it, and yet others fully incorporate it. This paper of the scope of scientific so that they can com- argues that abiogenesis should be included in upper prehend the linkages between them and other conceptual secondary biology curricula, but that students need to be frameworks. The delineation of the evolutionary paradigm made aware of the distinctions between chemical and as taught in biology classes thereby assumes a crucial biological evolutionary theories. epistemological function. This paper commences with a historical overview of Keywords Evolution . Abiogenesis . Chemical evolution . abiogenesis as an addendum to evolution. It then presents a Biology curriculum brief survey of upper secondary biology curricular state- ments from twelve education hailing from nine countries to see how they deal with the issue of the origin Introduction of within the context of evolution.

The phrase “the theory of evolution” in common parlance has a somewhat nebulous meaning (National Center for Abiogenesis as a Codicil to Evolution Science Education, n.d.). It is often applied to the entire secular mindset concerning the origin and development of ’s case as put in 1859 took as its starting the cosmos, including life—an angle strongly reinforced by point the existence of “a few forms or … one [into which much anti-evolution propaganda. But in the context of life had been] originally breathed” (last sentence of The biology, biological evolution and the origin of life— Origin; the words “by the Creator” were added in subsequent editions [Kuschera 2009]). This position was largely a reflection of deism—the notion, influential in * B. Vlaardingerbroek ( ) England from the late 17th century until the early 1800s, of Beirut, “ ” Beirut, Lebanon that God had created the laws which ran the , but e-mail: [email protected] having done so did not intervene any further in the Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:432–435 433 workings thereof. Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus had been a The introduction of the term “chemical evolution” has prominent deist, while , the founder of modern blurred the distinction between biological evolution and and Darwin’s mentor at Cambridge, was probably abiogenesis, but the two remain fundamentally different the most influential deist in the scientific of his theories. As summarized by the National Center for Science . It was little wonder, therefore, that the young Charles Education (n.d.): had found himself gravitating towards deism while at Evolution is a that explains the university (Ruse 1998); he was probably no longer of this of new varieties of living things in the by 1859 but considered it prudent to not exclude the past and in the present; it is not a ‘theory of origins’ theistic angle (Farley 1972; Kuschera 2009). He never about how life began. commented publicly on the issue of the origin of life, although he did outline in almost whimsical terms a Abiogenetic models have come a long way since early “chemical soup” scenario in a letter to Hooker (Bada and musings about simple organic substances being produced in Lazcano 2009). primordial ponds, but nonetheless remain focused on the That living originated from inanimate mate- prebiotic level (Fleischaker 1990). Equating abiogenesis rial was not a new idea; “spontaneous ” had been with evolutionary theory is listed as a misconception by debated since antiquity, and remained a hot topic in the University of California’s Berkeley ‘Understanding Victorian science even after Pasteur (for a full account see Evolution’ internet , although it is noted that Strick 2002), albeit applied mainly to microbes (cf. “Science does try to investigate how life started… but [this “formulae” for “making” vermin that were in currency is] not the central focus of evolutionary theory” (University during preceding centuries). While vigorous, the spontane- of California, n.d.). With the mounting interest in finding ous generation debate had not been particularly divisive in life outside our own , abiogenesis has increasingly terms of fundamental beliefs concerning origins; in the become an adjunct of modern (Carrapiço et al. absence of ties between groups of different - 2002). isms, it was of no great consequence whether a or a woodlouse could appear from inanimate or not. But the entry of evolutionary lineages, particularly the Evolution and Abiogenesis in Upper Secondary Biology phylogeny of ’s Generelle Morphologie of Curricula 1866 and beyond which showed micro-organisms as being at the of the tree of , gave Should abiogenesis be taught in upper secondary biology? a new meaning. Thomas Huxley It seems a practical impossibility to bypass the topic; coined the term ‘abiogenesis’ to distance the issue from the students will inevitably press their teachers about the origin historical baggage of spontaneous generation. of life as such, and time will be spent on it whether Paradoxically, Haeckel was at first of the opinion that abiogenesis is in the syllabus or not. The of this abiogenesis was an on-going process on the seabed, leading paper would accordingly reply to the question in the to the “discovery” of a “micro-” that Huxley affirmative, albeit with the caveat that a clear distinction named but which turned out to be an be made between chemical and biological evolution as artifact of alcohol preservation of marine sedimentary distinct branches of science. samples (Rehbock 1975). The Bathybius farce was histor- In to gain a broad insight into the treatment of ically significant in that it relegated abiogenesis to a abiogenesis in upper secondary biology education, twelve discrete point in the remote past (Huxley 1870; Raulin- upper secondary biology curricular statements were procured Cerceau 2004). In so doing, it placed abiogenesis at the from nine anglophone countries: England (Assessment and interface of non-life and life as a prerequisite for evolution; Qualifications Authority 2006 and 2009); USA (New York in Strick’s(2002, p.79) words, abiogenesis had become a [University of the State of New York 2009] and California “necessary correlate to evolution”. But ironically, the early [California Department of Education 1998]); Canada English Darwinists balked at the idea of evolutionary (Alberta [Alberta Education 2007] and [Quebec theory embracing abiogenesis because of its speculative Ministry of Education 1990]), Australia (New South Wales nature (Farley 1972; Strick 1999). Other than the work of [Board of Studies New South Wales 2009] and Queensland Oparin and Haldane in the , abiogenesis as a focus of [Queensland Studies Authority 2006]), India (Central Board scientific endeavour maintained a low profile until the of Secondary Education 2008); Malaysia (Malaysian middle of the twentieth century when the experimental Examination Council 2003); South Africa (South Africa work of Urey and Miller—the synthesis of amino- Department of Education 2003); New Zealand (New from the to have constituted the early ’s Zealand Ministry of Education 2007); and Singapore —brought it back to the fore. (Singapore Assessment and Examinations Board 2009a and 434 Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:432–435

2009b). Curriculum writing styles vary considerably; some Concluding Remarks are intensely content-prescriptive while others focus more on skills. The comparison of two official curricular documents The past century and a half has witnessed the emergence of may not always be comparing like with like. Curricular a holistic evolutionary mindset which encompasses cosmo- prescriptions are, moreover, only one factor in deciding what logical, geological, chemical and biological evolution. This happens in classrooms. Other factors include the textbooks has created a semantic problem with regard to the use of the and other source materials used, whether there is an external word “evolution.” It is not in itself a new problem, as examination to prepare students for, and teachers’ personal scientific discourse often attributes narrow meanings to stances on the topic being taught—probably a major factor words which may be more broadly applied in common in the context of evolution. There is no insinuation on the usage, and teachers need to clearly distinguish between part of the writer of this paper that the curricula cited are scientific theories of biological and chemical evolution, and necessarily reliable guides to what happens in biology the paradigm of evolution as an overarching conceptual classrooms. The aim of this aspect of the study was merely framework. Given the current emphasis in science educa- to note the absence or presence of abiogenesis in official tion on epistemological aspects of science, students should curricular statements, and its apparent relationship to not be left regarding biological evolution and abiogenesis evolution in the event of the latter. as aspects of the same scientific theory—an impression All curricula contain material on evolution, but six likely to be made by both cursory references to the origin of contain no allusion to the origin of life: England, Alberta, life in the context of a teaching unit on biological evolution Malaysia, South Africa, New Zealand and Singapore. The and by approaches which present abiogenesis as part and California curriculum notes that life has been on Earth for parcel of a unified evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis needs three , but does not elaborate on that theme. In to be written into upper secondary biology curricula, but as the New York curriculum, it is noted that “Billions of years a topic separate from, albeit related to, biological evolution. ago, life on Earth is thought by many to have begun as simple, single-celled organisms” (University of the State of New York 2009, p. 12); abiogenesis is hinted References at, but again is not developed as a curricular theme. The remaining curricula engage abiogenesis to varying Alberta Education. Biology 20–30. Edmonton: Alberta Education; degrees. The brief Indian curricular evolution prescription 2007. begins with “the origin of life, theories and evidence” and Assessment and Qualifications . GCE AS and A level subject moves on to mechanisms of biological evolution (Central criteria for science. London: Assessment and Qualifications Board of Secondary Education 2008, p. 97). The Queens- Alliance; 2006. “ ” Assessment and Qualifications Alliance. GCE AS and A level land curriculum notes that life originated in and specification—Biology. London: Assessment and Qualifications states that “All of the inorganic and organic compounds Alliance; 2009. necessary for self-replication and membrane assembly Bada JL, Lazcano A. The origin of life. In: Ruse M, Travis J, editors. — could have formed spontaneously under conditions that Evolution The first four billion years. New York: Harvard ” University Press; 2009. existed on (Queensland Studies Authority Board of Studies New South Wales. Biology stage 6 syllabus. Sydney: 2006). Abiogenesis (referred to as “biochemical evolution”) Board of Studies New South Wales; 2009. [Quebec Ministry of Education 1990, p. 24] and the California Department of Education. Science content standards. evolution of the first cells is thoroughly treated in a Sacramento: California Department of Education; 1998. Carrapiço F, Lourenço A, Fernandes L, Rodrigues T. A journey to the separate unit from biological evolution by the Quebec origins: the paradigm in education. Proceedings of curriculum. The New South Wales curriculum explicitly SPIE. 2002;4495:295–300. applies the evolutionary paradigm to chemical and Central Board of Secondary Education. Senior school curriculum, vol. cellular evolution through to the evolution of multicel- 1. New Delhi: Central Board of Secondary Education; 2008. Farley J. The spontaneous generation controversy (1859–1880): lular organisms (Board of Studies New South Wales British and German reactions to the problem of abiogenesis. J 2009). The Urey-Miller are included along- Hist Biol. 1972;5(2):285–319. side studies of . In summary, the curricular Fleischaker G. Origins of life: an operational definition. Orig Life – status of abiogenesis ranges from invisibility to a fully- Evol Biosph. 1990;20:127 37. Huxley TH. and abiogenesis. Collected Essays, vol. 8. fledged aspect of evolutionary theory within a unified New York: D. Appleton; 1870. p. 229–71. chemical/biological evolutionary conceptual framework. Kuschera U. Darwin’s philosophical imperative and the furor At the very least, it may be said that these are theologicus. Evolution: Education and Outreach; 2009. indicative of a high degree of ambiguity concerning the doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0166-8. Malaysian Examination Council. Malaysia higher school certificate scope of the evolution concept as it is taught at secondary biology syllabus. 2nd ed. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Examination school level. Council; 2003. Evo Edu Outreach (2010) 3:432–435 435

Mathews MR. Science teaching—The role of history and philosophy Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board. Biology higher 1 of science. New York: ; 1994. (syllabus 8875). Singapore: Singapore Examinations and Assess- National Center for Science Education. (n.d.). Retrieved on 6 January ment Board; 2009a. 2010 from http://ncse.com. Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board. Biology higher 2 New Zealand Ministry of Education. The New Zealand curriculum. (syllabus 9747). Singapore: Singapore Examinations and Assess- Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education; 2007. ment Board; 2009b. Quebec Ministry of Education. General biology 535–534. Montreal: South Africa Department of Education. National curriculum statement Quebec Ministry of Education; 1990. grades 10–12 (general)—Life . Pretoria: South Africa Queensland Studies Authority. Senior syllabus—Biology. Brisbane: Department of Education; 2003. Queensland Studies Authority; 2006. Strick J. and the origin of life: the role of H.C. Bastian in Raulin-Cerceau F. Analysis of the works of the German naturalist the British spontaneous generation debates, 1969–1873. J Hist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) on the origin of life. In: Seckbach J, Biol. 1999;32:51–92. Cheta-Flores J, Owen T, Raulin F, editors. Life in the universe— Strick JE. Sparks of life—Darwinism and the Victorian debates over From the Miller to the search for life in other worlds. spontaneous generation. Cambridge: Press; 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2004. p. 349–52. University of California. (n.d.) Misconception: ‘Evolution is a theory Rehbock PF. Huxley, Haeckel, and the oceanographers: the case of about the origin of life’. Retrieved on 6 January 2010 from http:// Bathybius haeckelii. Isis. 1975;66(4):504–33. evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml. Ruse M. Darwinism and atheism: different sides of the same coin? University of the State of New York. The living environment core Endeavour. 1998;22(1):17–9. curriculum. New York: State Education Department; 2009.