reationists and evolutionists agree on real science—that is, the nature of

the present world and how it operates. What we disagree on are ourspeculations about the past... . When prop-erly understood, both evolution and cre-ation are outside the bounds of empiricalscience, and, therefore, are incapable ofscientific proof.”

(Morris, 1998).

With this single passage, John Morris demonstratedthat he subscribes to at least two of the 15 myths aboutscience identified by McComas (1998) in a recent vol-ume on the nature of science in science education. Thetwo myths reflected in Morris’ statement are: (1) thatthere is a universally applied scientific method and (2)that experiments are the principal, or only, route to sci-entific knowledge. If we accept creationist John Morris’account of “real science,” parts of what we now recog-nize as evolutionary biology, geology, and physics mustbe excluded since scientists in these disciplines maystudy historical events that cannot be replicated in con-

trolled experiments. Unfortunately, many nonscientistssee no problem with Morris’ assessment of the scien-tist’s ability to deal with historical events and areinclined to accept his conclusion that evolution andother historical sciences are unscientific. These wide-spread myths prevent creationist claims, like that ofJohn Morris, from being critically analyzed or chal-lenged by the public. Ruse (1998) observed that eventhose who are disposed to accept the fact of evolutionwill admit that “…there is something a little odd aboutthe theory of evolution, either in structure or in themethodology it invokes” (p. 20). He added that by“odd” they usually mean that studies in evolutionarybiology typically do not conform to the model of exper-imental science found in physics and chemistry.

According to the common myths described byMcComas (1998), scientists work through a sequenceof steps that usually includes defining a problem, gath-ering information, proposing a hypothesis, making rele-vant observations, testing the hypothesis by directlyobserving the phenomenon during a controlled experi-ment, forming conclusions, and reporting the results.This is the standard textbook version of the universalscientific method. In the public mind, to make the claimthat knowledge generated by this method is “scientifi-cally proven” lends it an air of certainty that knowledge

“C

ROBERT A. COOPER is a Biology teacher at Pennsbury HighSchool, Fairless Hills, PA; rac7@erols.com.

Confronting Myths About Evolution

& Scientific Methods

R O B E R T A. CO O P E R

KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE’S HISTORY 427

ScientificKnowledge of thePast Is Possible

in other disciplines presumably lacks. Conversely, anyclaim to knowledge that is not verified through the uni-versal scientific method is necessarily suspect. In fact,for some critics like John Morris, if the work does notconform to the universal scientific method as describedabove, it isn’t science. Thus, by Morris’ account, sinceyou cannot directly observe amphibians evolving fromfish, humans evolving from ape-like ancestors, or repli-cate these phenomena in a controlled experiment, youcannot establish the reliability of such claims.

In contrast to the simplistic, and incorrect, view ofscience reflected in Morris’ quote, documents that out-line national standards for quality science instructioncall for students to develop a richer and more accurateunderstanding of the nature of science as an essentialcomponent of scientific literacy (American Associationfor the Advancement of Science, 1990, 1993; NationalResearch Council, 1996). For example, the Benchmarksfor Science Literacy (1993) distinguish scientific inquiryfrom the overly simplistic popular view as follows: “It isfar more flexible than the rigid sequence of steps com-monly depicted in textbooks as ‘the scientific method.’It is much more than just ‘doing experiments,’ and it isnot confined to laboratories” (p. 9). There are actuallymany methods that scientists use to construct reliableknowledge. According to the National Science EducationStandards (1996), “Scientific inquiry refers to the diverseways in which scientists study the natural world andpropose explanations based on the evidence derivedfrom their work” (p. 23). There are many commonmethodological elements and values that run like athread throughout the various disciplines in science(Smith & Scharmann, 1999). However, “scientists differgreatly from one another in what phenomena theyinvestigate and in how they go about their work; in thereliance they place on historical data or on experimentalfindings and on qualitative or quantitative methods …”(AAAS, 1990, pp. 3-4, emphasis added). Scientificinquiry, as it is portrayed in these standards documents,encompasses attitudes, values, aims, and patterns ofargument, as well as a variety of methods that haveevolved throughout the history of science. The con-trolled experiment is only one among many methodsused in science. The fact that historical events areunique and cannot be replicated in the laboratory doesnot prevent scientists from constructing reliable knowl-edge about them.

This article presents the argument that, contrary tocreationist claims and public perception, a variety ofmethods is used in science and among those methodsare some that enable scientists to understand the past.It is an effort to make a small step toward the vision ofscience called for in the standards documents bydescribing some of the methods of problem solvingused in the historical sciences. The methods described

here were originally developed by James Hutton,Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin (Eldredge, 2000;Gould, 1986; Kitcher, 1993; Mayr, 2000), and they doenable scientists to investigate the past.

The Textbook Scientific Method The probable source of the John Morris’ portrayal

of science can be found in existing textbooks (Duschl,1990; McComas, 1998; Toumey, 1996). Science text-books typically discuss the scientific process in the firstchapter, listing some version of the steps in the univer-sal scientific method as if the process consisted of theapplication of a standard formula that leads to facts. Byway of example, most textbooks present a controlledexperiment in this first chapter suggesting that this isthe model form to which all scientists aspire. For exam-ple, the 1950s text, Modern Biology (Moon, Mann &Otto, 1956), while acknowledging that a variety ofmethods exists, placed greatest emphasis on testing ofhypotheses by performing controlled experiments asbeing most characteristic of science. Little has changedin recent additions to the genre. In a new text, Johnsonand Raven (2001) presented scientific methods in amanner very similar to Moon, Mann and Otto. Johnsonand Raven wrote, “Although there is no single ‘scientif-ic method,’ all scientific investigations can be said tohave common stages …” (p. 15). They went on to pres-ent a sequence of steps similar to the universal scientif-ic method described above and referred the reader to afigure on the same page that also contains the list ofsteps suggesting that the process is formulaic. The sec-tion continues with a description of a field study fol-lowed up by a controlled experiment. The inclusion ofa field study is an improvement over many older text-books; however, the authors did not identify the fieldstudy as such, nor did they discuss the comparativestrengths and weaknesses of field studies and experi-mental studies. The student who reads this text is leftto conclude that the experimental study, which match-es the list of steps and is described in greater detail, isthe approach of choice, or worse, may be the onlychoice in “real” science.

McComas (1998) traced the origin of the multisteplist presented as the universal scientific method in text-books to two articles written by Keeslar (1945a, b).Keeslar’s (1945a) reflects the then prevalent empiricistphilosophy of science which held that observations areprimary, and laws and theories emerge as inductive gen-eralizations from these observations. Duschl (1990)described how the traditional textbook presentation ofscientific method emerged from this empiricist philoso-phy. The image of science typically portrayed in thesetextbooks promotes a ‘scientistic ideology,’ a belief thatscientific authority is unlimited and that scientific

428 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 64, NO. 6, AUGUST 2002

knowledge is established with absolute certainty(Duschl, 1988). Furthermore, scientism implies that thecertainty and reliability of knowledge in any field mustbe judged by the degree to which that discipline adoptsscientific methodology (usually meaning methods mod-eled after those of experimental physics and chemistry).

By the 1950s, a new group of philosophers and his-torians began to look at the way scientists actually wentabout their work and found that many scientists do notconform to the rules of method and patterns of reason-ing set down in most science textbooks (Duschl, 1985,1990). The national standards documents reflect thesemore recent developments in the history and philoso-phy of science. As described by the national standardsdocuments, there is a variety of methods used by scien-tists. Among these methods are some that enable scien-tists to address questions about historical events. Thegoals described in the standards documents will not beachieved with existing instructional tools and approach-es. Textbooks must be revised to more accurately reflectmore current views of the nature of science and scien-tific methods. Included among the methods addressedin textbooks should be the methods first developed inthe 18th and 19th centuries to study historical events.

Methods for StudyingEvolutionary History

Scientists who attempt to reconstruct the history oflife, the Earth’s geologic features, or the cosmos rarelyperform the controlled experiments that textbooksdescribe, and their theories do not conform to the struc-ture of theories as described by the empiricists. Yet, theconclusions they reach are no less reliable and no lessscientific than those arrived at by performing controlledexperiments. They typically construct narrative descrip-tions of sequences of events that are consistent withavailable evidence. To be testable, the narrative mustalso suggest additional evidence that should, or shouldnot be, found if the story is correct. The work of histor-ical scientists is similar to that of experimental scientistsin its reliance on logical explanation, empirical evi-dence, parsimony, and many other characteristics thatare shared by the various sciences (Smith &Scharmann, 1999)1. However, because the historical sci-ences deal with phenomena that are unique and unre-peatable in all of their details, they rely less on the veri-fication of hypotheses through controlled experiments.

Recognition of the fact that historical events can bethe object of scientific study began to emerge in the late18th and early 19th centuries related to then emerging

questions in geology and biogeography. GeologistJames Hutton (1726-1797) made observations ofprocesses occurring in nature around him and usedthose observations to interpret the events of the past(Eldredge, 2000). Building on Hutton’s work, CharlesLyell (1797-1875) wrote the influential three-volumework Principles of Geology in which he stressed Hutton’sprinciple of the uniformity of geological processes overtime and also the idea that the gradual accumulation ofsmall changes can, over long periods of time, lead tolarge-scale change (Eldredge, 2000). Darwin read, andwas greatly influenced by, Lyell’s Principles. In his auto-biography, Darwin wrote, “After my return to England[from the voyage of the Beagle] it appeared to me that byfollowing the example of Lyell in Geology, and by col-lecting all facts which bore in any way on the variationof animals and plants under domestication and nature,some light might perhaps be thrown on the whole sub-ject” (Darwin, 1876/1958, p. 119). Thus the develop-ment of methods for studying historical events culmi-nated in the work of Charles Darwin, whose Origin ofSpecies is the most influential book in biology, as well asone of the most influential in history (Mayr, 2000). Inthe Origin Darwin applied patterns of reasoning similarto Lyell’s in order to establish the plausibility of naturalselection as a cause of large-scale evolutionary change.

Darwin was, above all, a methodologist whoshowed the generations of historical scientists who fol-lowed how to proceed in order to scientifically investi-gate historical processes like evolution (Ghiselin, 1969;Gould, 1986; Kitcher, 1993). According to Kitcher(1993), the originality of Darwin’s thesis in the Origin ofSpecies is the development of explanatory strategiesaimed at answering families of important biologicalquestions by applying Darwinian histories, descriptionsof the probable historical events that led to the emer-gence of some structure or function presently observedin an organism. Kitcher (1993) argued that Darwin pro-vided a means for answering questions about biogeog-raphy, comparative anatomy, embryology, and adapta-tion. The Origin is an extended argument that illustrateshow Darwinian histories employ the concepts ofdescent with modification and natural selection to pro-vide a single coordinating explanation for then out-standing problems in each of these areas of biology.

Darwinian histories necessarily involve incompleteinformation about past events. History can never berecovered in all of its detail, yet based on a broad rangeof observations of the current state of affairs, one canfind evidence to either support or refute a hypotheticalhistorical narrative. For example, in the Origin, Darwinasked, Why are the endemic species of Galapagos

1 For interesting discussions of the methods and problems of historical sciences in the context of the dinosaur extinc-tion controversy see Alvarez (1997) and Powell (1998).

KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE’S HISTORY 429

finches so similar to South American finches? In refer-ence to the South American life forms he wrote, “Herealmost every product of the land and of the water bearsthe unmistakable stamp of the American continent”(Darwin, 1859/1964, pp. 397-398). Darwin hypothe-sized that the Galapagos finches were descended frommainland South American forms. His explanation forthe current state of affairs, that is, the similaritybetween different finch populations, involved a discus-sion of the distance of the islands from the nearbymainland, the possibility of past migrations from themainland based on naturalists’ observations of migra-tion between mainland and islands in recent history,and the subsequent modification of the migrants bynatural selection under the different environmentalconditions of the islands. In short, given an entirely rea-sonable historical hypothesis about migration ofspecies between mainland and island, the similaritiesbetween Galapagos and South American finches can beaccounted for by genealogy and phylogeny (both histo-ries), while the differences can be accounted for by nat-ural selection resulting in adaptations to different localenvironments. A historical narrative becomes the coor-dinating explanation for the disparate facts assembledby Darwin in the case of the finches.

In contrast to the methods used in experimentalsciences, historical narratives, like Darwin’s explanationfor the similarities in the finches, cannot usually be test-ed by performing controlled experiments. Historicalnarratives must stand or fall on the basis of whetherthey can consistently explain the evidence gatheredfrom many different sources. Darwin’s Origin of Species(1859/1964) is full of examples of similar arguments inwhich a historical hypothesis of genealogical and phylo-genetic relationships is shown to be more consistentwith the available evidence than the rival hypothesis ofmultiple, separate creations.

Gould (1986) provided a similar view of Darwin’sachievement as a methodologist; however, he took abroader look at Darwin’s career. Gould (1986) viewedseveral of the books written by Darwin as “… a covert,perhaps unconscious extended treatise on methodolo-gy…” (p. 62). According to Gould, Darwin’s achieve-ment is the development of a graded series of threemethods for inferring history from results or artifactsthat can be observed. The first of these three methodsinvolves the direct application of the principle of uni-formitarianism, and includes cases where a process canbe observed and measured in the present.Measurements of the rate of the process in question canbe extrapolated over longer periods of time to explainlarge-scale results that can be observed. In TheFormation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action ofWorms (1881), Darwin measured the rate of soilturnover caused by earthworms and extrapolated that

measure over time to explain the subsidence ofStonehenge. Another example of direct application ofthis uniformitarian principle involves the measure-ments, by Peter and Rosemary Grant, of the changes inthe genetic structure of finch populations on DaphneMajor, an island in the Galapagos Archipelago. TheGrant’s work demonstrates the high degree of respon-siveness of a genetic system to changes in environmen-tal conditions. This small-scale, genetic change meas-ured by the Grant’s can be extrapolated over longerperiods of time to explain the evolution of 13 species ofGalapagos finches all descended from one ancestralSouth American form. All one need imagine is that therewere sustained selection pressures in different direc-tions for populations that were isolated from each otheron different islands.

The second of Darwin’s methods for inferring his-tory from results or artifacts involves looking for stagesor kinds that can be arranged in a logical sequence.Gould (1986) described how Darwin explained theexistence of coral atolls as the last in a series of stages ofreef growth around the edges of islands. In The Structureand Distribution of Coral Reefs (1842), Darwin developeda historical hypothesis placing fringing reefs, barrierreefs, and coral atolls as successive stages in the growthof a reef around a mid-ocean island, which subsequent-ly subsided into the ocean. Measurements taken in the20th century of the thickness of these different stagessupport Darwin’s hypothesis. A second example of thismethod might include any of the good fossil sequencesthat are available; for example, the fossils that illustratethe changes that occurred in the evolution of mammalsfrom mammal-like reptiles.

The third and final method that Gould (1986)attributed to Darwin involves making inferences abouthistory from single cases. Darwin recognized that adap-tations which approach engineering perfection, like thebird’s wing or the human eye, do not provide thestrongest support for evolution. Because we see themonly in final form, we cannot tell whether they evolvedor they were designed. Darwin looked toward imperfectadaptations to support his theory because the imperfec-tions show the path through history that led to the adap-tation. Perfect, or near perfect, adaptations obscure theirhistory. By way of example, Gould offered Darwin’s TheVarious Contrivances by Which Orchids are Fertilized byInsects (1862). In this book, Darwin argued that the var-ious adaptations for fertilization found among theorchids are simply flower parts that have been modifiedby natural selection. Gould often refers to this as thepanda principle in honor of his favorite example, thepanda’s “thumb.” Analysis of the “thumb” used by pan-das to strip bamboo leaves from their stalks shows thatthe thumb is not actually a digit, but rather is a modifiedwrist bone, the radial sesamoid. Gould argued, as did

430 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 64, NO. 6, AUGUST 2002

KNOWLEDGE OF LIFE’S HISTORY 431

Darwin, that the panda’s “thumb,” and other similarexamples of functional but imperfect structures wereproduced by the historical process of descent with mod-ification and not separately created (Gould, 1980).

Consilience - Evidence FromMany Sources

If we focus singly on only a few oddities like thepanda’s thumb, or on the available hypothetical fossilsequences, the case for evolution may seem very weak.In order to appreciate the overwhelming strength of thesupport for evolution, one must simultaneously con-sider all of the evidence from many different sources.Darwin lamented the fact that few scientists in his dayunderstood this. In a letter to Hooker written in 1861,Darwin wrote: “Change of species cannot be directlyproved… the doctrine must sink or swim according as itgroups and explains phenomena. It is really curioushow few judge it in this way, which is clearly the rightway” (quoted in Gould, 1986, p. 65). Judging from theongoing evolution-creation debates, it would seem thatthere are still very few people who understandDarwin’s argument.

Public debates over evolutionary claims, such as theemergence of Homo sapiens from ancestral hominids,often reflect this failure to understand the pattern of rea-soning necessary for establishing support for claims inhistorical sciences. When the combined weight of all ofthe evidence is taken into account, the evolution of lifethrough descent with modification is considered to beone of the most reliable conclusions of modern science.This is not to say that scientists who rely on historicalevidence can establish their conclusions with absolutecertainty. Since they have incomplete informationabout the past, their conclusions must always remaintentative. However, absolutely certain conclusions donot emerge in the experimental sciences either. All sci-entific interpretations of evidence must be held tenta-tively. Both the historical sciences and the experimentalsciences establish increasing levels of confidence in theconclusions they reach by seeking many independentlines of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.This is why, in the experimental sciences, independentreplication of experiments is desirable. When manyindependently conducted experiments all point to thesame conclusion, scientists have more confidence in theconclusion. Ruse (1998) likens this character of scienceto the use of circumstantial evidence in a court of law.

William Whewell, a 19th century British philoso-pher and historian of science, was the first to clearlyarticulate the fundamental principle that independentlines of evidence all pointing to the same conclusionallow scientists to claim increasing confidence in thatconclusion (Gould, 1986; Ruse, 1998). The term used

by Whewell to denote this principle is consilience. Inaphorism XIV of his Novum Organon Renovatum,Whewell (1858/1968) wrote: “The Consilience ofInductions takes place when an Induction, obtainedfrom one class of facts, coincides with an Induction,obtained from another different class. This Consilienceis a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs”(pp. 138-139). Ruse (1998) argued that: “[Consilience]is a method used constantly in science, and a mark thatthe work has been well done. Convergence on a com-mon principle convinces us that we have movedbeyond coincidence. … Darwin endorsed Whewell’sideas entirely, and the Origin offers a textbook exampleof a consilience” (pp. 2-3). In the Origin, Darwinamassed many independent lines of evidence from arti-ficial breeding, biogeography, comparative anatomy,embryology, and paleontology, all of which point to thesame conclusion: that descent with modification bynatural selection surely has occurred. Add to Darwin’sevidence the additional fossil finds that have accumu-lated since 1859, the many field and laboratory studiesof natural selection, and the homologies in molecularsequences and the conclusion that Darwin was correctis inescapable.

Conclusions & ImplicationsScience is understood by the public in terms of

symbols and myths that perpetuate a view of science asa method of establishing absolutely certain knowledgethrough experiment (McComas, 1998; Toumey, 1996).Capitalizing on this widespread public misconception,creationists typically argue that both evolution and cre-ationism are unscientific because neither can be‘proven’ by a controlled experiment. This widespreadmisunderstanding of science prevents many fromappreciating the power of evolutionary theories toexplain adaptations of living things as well as life’s unityand diversity. Furthermore, misunderstandings aboutthe nature of historical sciences prevent many fromunderstanding that in a system where genealogical andphylogenetic relationships exist between elements, his-tory must be part of the causal explanation for the cur-rent state of the system. The solution to this problem isto change the way textbooks portray scientific methodsand bring the texts into line with the recommendationsof the national standards documents.

Textbooks should more clearly and completelyaddress the diversity of scientific methods in that firstchapter. Descriptions of successful studies in historicaldisciplines should be included in addition to the stan-dard experimental studies in order to demonstrate forstudents that reliable knowledge of life’s history can beobtained. For example, Margulis’ SET or the develop-ment of the impact theory to explain the mass extinc-tion at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary could be used

432 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 64, NO. 6, AUGUST 2002

as excellent examples that would illustrate historicalmethods, as well as foster student interest (Alvarez,1997; Powell, 1998). But discussions of method and thenature of science should not end with the first chapter.Rather than presenting science in its final form, that is,as a series of firmly established conclusions (Duschl,1988, 1990; Schwab, 1962) throughout the rest of thetext, authors should include discussion of the evolutionof scientific ideas. What ideas preceded the currentlyaccepted ones? Why were they rejected? What role didempirical evidence play? What methods were used?What role did historical and social factors play? As aresult of such an approach, students may come tounderstand not only what scientists currently know, butalso how they have arrived at those conclusions(Duschl, 1988, 1990). This approach to science educa-tion presents a view of science as a rational process forinvestigating and understanding nature. Such a viewwould enable students to achieve the level of literacydescribed in the standards documents and also effec-tively counter the arguments of creationists that evolu-tion is not science, but is just another belief system.

AcknowledgmentI would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for

comments on an earlier draft of this article and also forsuggesting the chapter from McComas (1998). Thecomments and chapter were very helpful in shaping thefinal form of this article.

ReferencesAlvarez, W. (1997). T. Rex and the Crater of Doom. New York:

Vintage Books.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990).Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Darwin, C. (1842). The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs.London: Smith, Elder.

Darwin, C. (1862). The Various Contrivances by Which OrchidsAre Fertilized by Insects. London: John Murray.

Darwin, C. (1859/1964). On the Origin of Species. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Darwin, C. (1876/1958). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin:1809-1882. Edited by Nora Barlow. New York: W. W.Norton.

Darwin, C. (1881). The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Throughthe Action of Worms. London: John Murray.

Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring Science Education: TheImportance of Theories and Their Development. New York:Teachers College Press.

Duschl, R.A. (1988). Abandoning the scientistic legacy of sci-ence education. Science Education, 72, 51-62.

Duschl, R.A. (1985). Science education and philosophy of sci-ence: Twenty-five Years of mutually exclusive development.School Science and Mathematics, 85(7), 541-555.

Eldredge, N. (2000). The Triumph of Evolution … And the Failureof Creationism. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Ghiselin, M.T. (1969). The Triumph of the Darwinian Method.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gould, S.J. (1986, January-February). Evolution and the tri-umph of homology, or why history matters. AmericanScientist, 74(1), 60-69.

Gould, S.J. (1980). The panda’s thumb. In S.J. Gould (Ed.), ThePanda’s Thumb (pp. 19-26). New York: W.W. Norton.

Johnson, G.B. & Raven, P.H. (2001). Biology: Principles andExplorations. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Keeslar, O. (1945a). A survey of research studies dealing withthe elements of scientific method as objectives of instruc-tion in science. Science Education, 29, 212-216.

Keeslar, O. (1945b). The elements of scientific method. ScienceEducation, 29, 273-278.

Kitcher, P. (1993). The Advancement of Science. New York:Oxford University Press.

Mayr, E. (2000, July). Darwin’s influence on modern thought.Scientific American, 283(1), 78-83.

McComas, W.F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature ofscience: Dispelling the myths. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), TheNature of Science in Science Education: Rationales andStrategies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Moon, T.J., Mann, P.B. & Otto, J.H. (1956). Modern Biology. NewYork: Henry Holt and Company.

Morris, J.D. (1998). Can scientists study the past? Acts and Facts[20(2), 1998]. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-idxb.htm.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science EducationStandards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Powell, J.L. (1998). Night Comes to the Cretaceous. San Diego:Harcourt Brace.

Ruse, M. (1998). Taking Darwin Seriously: A NaturalisticApproach to Philosophy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J.J.Schwab & P. E. Brandwein (Eds.), The Teaching of Science,(pp. 1 – 103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Smith, M.U. & Scharmann, L.C. (1999). Defining versusdescribing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis forclassroom teachers and science educators. ScienceEducation, 83, 493-509.

Toumey, C.P. (1996). Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols andCultural Meanings in American Life. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.

Whewell, W. (1858/1968). Novum organon renovatum. In R.E.Butts (Ed.), William Whewell’s theory of scientific method.Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.