The Artificer-Phenomenological Primitive and

the Inculcation of Evolutionary Theory

There is widespread dismay in the scientific community over the lack of acceptance of evolutionary theory by secondary and post-secondary students and by the American populace, in general. The resilience of “design” based paradigms is suggestive of either deeply rooted misconceptions or the existence of a p-prim that runs counter to evolutionary theory. This paper will propose the latter, that is, it will argue that an artificer p-prim is responsible for the failure of wide spread acceptance of evolutionary theory in spite of several generations of inculcation by the public school system. It will argue this on the bases of (1) the persistence of agency, (2) the impulse to ascribe agency linguistically, (3) the transcultural and transhistorical ascription of agency to origin narratives, (4) an explanation for the early childhood development of the artificer p-prim, and (5) the promising pedagogical interventions that employ a p-prim approach.

Science magazine reported that in a survey of 34 countries only Turkey ranked lower than the United States in its acceptance of evolution (cited by Schaller, 2007). Longitudinal studies examining surveys conducted over the past thirty years suggests that the number of Americans that believe in creationism or theistic evolution is actually on the rise (Blackwell, 2003 p59). Eugenia Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education, foresees an exacerbation of this problem as competitive theories such as “Intelligent Design” are introduced into the market place of ideas. Scott sees this situation as a call to arm:

“According to the neutralist principle in biology, a mutation will eventually replace the wild type unless it is opposed by natural selection. It is an unsubtle metaphor: if scientists do not oppose antievolutionism, it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak, and further, that scientists are clinging to it only because of a previous commitment to atheism—and perhaps a selfish desire to keep the grant money flowing. The subsequent further reduction in scientific literacy (to say nothing of a decline in confidence in the scientific community) is not something we should passively let happen.” (Scott, 2000)

This evidence speaks to the resilience of these “mutational” design-based paradigms. Education researchers have observed that the resilience of ideas lie, in part, in the preconceptions that students bring with them into the classroom. As David Hammer observed:

“It has become widely accepted as a truth, among those who follow or participate in science education research, that students come to science courses with conceptions about the world that differ from scientists….” (Hammer, 1996 p97)

In studying college physics students, Andrea diSessa, observed that they possessed persistent “preconceptions” which he identified as p-prims (phenomenological primitives) of such high priority as requiring “drastic reduction of priority or rearrangement of priority structure to allow expert-like understanding.” (diSessa, 1981 p30). The advantage that designed-based paradigms seemingly have over the “wild type” evolutionary paradigm is consistent with the high priority p-prim; the artificer p-prim, which I am proposing is instrumental in maintaining the resilience of design-based paradigms.

Rob Moore explored college students’ linguistic usage when describing evolutionary processes. His research demonstrated that students have a natural inclination to ascribe agency to evolutionary processes which, as articulated by Gould and Ayala, should be understood as being driven solely by chance and necessity (Ayala, 2007). The author continues by speculating on the origin of this tendency to employ the language of agency:

The question of why the impulse to ascribe agency is such a compelling one prompts the realization that perhaps the problem is somewhat deeper than simply one of the ‘register’ of language. (Moore, 2002p 69)

Moore attributes this “impulse to ascribe agency” to the fact that “evolutionary theory (with all its assertions of chance and arbitrariness) is a relatively fragile construct that has to co-exist with bigger social narratives that work to shape our sense of the world and who we are in it.” (Moore, 2002 p69). However, if this “impulse to ascribe agency” was due solely to these “bigger social narratives” one might conclude that scientists who have rejected those narratives and who have adopted the evolutionary worldview would avoid this linguistic tendency. Yet, this is not the case as some of evolutions more ardent and eloquent apologists sometimes yield to the same impulse. Consider the prose written by the famous evolutionary biologist, E.O. Wilson:

Don’t mess with Mother Nature. The lady is our mother all right, and a might dispensational force as well. … Ancient and vulnerable, she will not tolerate the undisciplined appetite of her gargantuan infant [humanity] much longer…. The issue, like all great decisions, is moral. Science and technology are what we can do; morality is what we agree we should or should not do…. A conservative ethic is that which aims to pass on to future generations the best part of the nonhuman world. To know this world is to gain a proprietary attachment to it. To know it well is to love and take responsibility for it. (Wilson 2002)

This tendency to employ the linguistics of agency even by those who reject the social narratives of agency is strongly suggestive of the artificer p-prim. This is not to diminish the role of the social narrative. Indeed, Will Blackwell, in his study The Problem of Student Acceptance of Evolution, is undoubted correct when he attributes students’ “strong preconceptions, often based on specific religious teachings” as an impediment to acceptance of evolutionary theory (Blackwell, 2003 p58). But it is likely that these narratives are building upon and thus reinforcing the artificer p-prim rather than being the source of students’ preconceptions (or misconceptions depending upon one’s perspective).

Eugenia Scott agrees with Moore and Blackwell that there exists a strong design social/religious narrative in our culture which likely accounts for the lack of acceptance of evolutionary theory in America. She also attributes this resistance to a uniquely “frontier orientation” which has decentralized our nation’s educational system making the inculcation of evolutionary theory more difficult (Scott, 2000). Again, it can be argued that the artificer p-prim is prior to either the social/religious narratives or the organization of our educational system. If this were not true than one would expect to find cultures both past and present which would not ascribe agency in their origin narratives. This however, is not the case. A cross-cultural study of creation myths demonstrates the transhistorical nature of agency in the origin of the earth, life, and especially, humanity. In each case, this agency is not an arbitrary force but an artificer that creates purposefully. The idea that the world and life came about by chance naturalistic forces is a rare cultural phenomenon. Democritus developed his concept of the atom as part of a grander philosophical materialism which was later adopted and elaborated upon by Epicurus and Lucretus. It was not warmly received by either Greek or Roman cultures. It wasn’t until Darwin, as Richard Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene, that such a notion began to be thought of as “intellectually satisfying.” Nevertheless, its lack of acceptance, even among the scientific community where approximately 40% believe that some sort of divine agency is involved in evolution (as sited by Scott, 2000), demonstrates the counter-intuitiveness of the “design without a designer” tenant of orthodox evolutionary theory lending further support for the existence of the artificer p-prim.

The idea of an artificer p-prim is supported not only by the transhistorical nature of agency in creation myths, the linguistics of agency, and the resilience and intuitiveness of this notion, but also by the relative simplicity by which we can explain how this p-prim might have developed. It’s very name, phenomenological primitive, implies that it forms early in the intellectual development of the individual. A young child is surrounded by agency acting purposefully to create change—preparing a meal, making a tree house, or sowing a button on a shirt. It is, however, difficult to imagine a child being exposed to a chance event that produced much of anything beneficial. In this context, one can readily imagine how this “small and general” (see Hammer, 1996 p120) primitive notion could later be incorporated and elaborated upon by societal and religious enculturation.

It is possible that part of the failure of successful inculcation of evolutionary theory is due, in part, to the tendency for scientists and educators to ascribe students’ preconceptions as a result of misconceptions rather than a phenomenological primitive. Hammer clearly articulates the different pedagogical approaches employed for dealing with misconceptions versus p-prims:

The two perspectives differ, however, with respect to what the instructor may find in that exploration. From one perspective, a teacher sees conceptions inherently inconsistent with expert knowledge; from the other, a teacher sees p-prims, knowledge elements that could contribute to expert understanding. The principal practical significance for a teacher is that the former implies the task of dismantling and replacing prior knowledge, where as the latter suggests the task of modifying the organization and use of prior knowledge. (Hammer 1996, p117)

Blackwell describes the impediment to inculcating evolutionary theory as a misconception and not a p-prim, nevertheless, he suggests employing a decidedly p-prim-matic approach to pedagogical intervention, that is, to use the p-prim rather than challenge and deconstruct it:

“If we can thus, somehow, intercalate ideas of evolution naturally into the student’s own belief system, we will stand a better chance of gaining student appreciation, and eventual acceptance, of evolutionary theory. To be effective, this should be done simply, clearly, and without perceived threat to belief (to prevent immediate dismissal by the student). (Blackwell, 2003, p61)

He cited D. Matthews’ (2001) advocation of the use of “creation stories in teaching evolution” as a possible pedagogical approach. This is consistent with the idea that a p-prim is not viewed as interfering with “students’ development of expertise; they are essential to it.” (Hammer, 1996 p120). Blackwell developed this concept further by constructing a questionnaire that would be given to students prior to instruction in their biology class. Although not articulated as such, this questionnaire was designed to re-direct the artificer p-prim so that the artificer would be perceived as natural selection. However, this modern day Odysseus did not use a horse made of wood to penetrate the Trojan gates, instead he used puppies:

“Most students have experience with and fondness for dogs and breeds of dogs. For this reason, because discussion of evolution of dogs and dog breeds is available in popular books, articles, we developed a questionnaire based mainly on differences among dogs.” (Blackwell, 2003 p61)

Blackwell reported improved student acceptance of evolutionary theory as a result of his questionnaire intervention. If Blackwell had been dealing with a misconception it is unlikely that his methodology would have made a significant difference in the students’ acceptance of evolution thus lending further evidence for the existence of an artificer p-prim.

Substantial evidence for the existence of an artificer p-prim has been cited here. The somewhat Orwellian approaches employed by Matthews and Blackwell where the teacher surreptitiously manipulates this p-prim to inculcate evolutionary theory has had promising results albeit at the expense of intellectual honesty. There is, however, alternative explanation for the resilience of designed-based paradigms: the artificer p-prim may not be an evolutionary vestige to be manipulated and then excised, rather it may be an a priori intuition that impels us to the recognition that “from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy may be seen….”*

References:

Ayala, F. (2007) Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer. Proceeding of

the National Academy of Sciences. Vol 1 Suppl 1

Blackwell, W. (2003) The Problem of student acceptance of evolution. Journal of

Biological Education. Vol 37 p58-67

diSessa, A. (1983) Phenomenology and the Evolution of Intuition. Mental Models. Ed.

Gentner & Stevens. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale N.J.

Hammer, D. (1996) Misconceptions or P-Prims: How May Alternative Perspectives

Of Cognitive Structure Influence Instructional Perceptions and Intentions.

The Journal of the Learning Sciences 5(2) p97-127

Moore, R. (2002) Undergraduates’ understanding of evolution: ascriptions of agency as

a problem for student learning. Journal of Biological Education Vol 36 p 65-71

Schaller, C. (2007) The Journal Vol 34, Issue 8

Scott, E. (2000). Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore. Science. Vol. 288, Issue 5467

Wilson, E. (2002) What is nature worth? There’s a powerful economic argument for

preserving our living natural environment. San Francisco Chronicle (May 5)

---

* Wisdom 13:5