Skip to main content
Log in

A Textbook Case of the Nature of Science: Laws and Theories in the Science of Biology

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The two concepts “law” and “theory” are among the most important elements of the nature of science. They represent both the tools and products of science itself. Unfortunately, the variable meanings and use of these terms in general discourse and in other school disciplines results in much confusion with respect to their proper application in a science context. The project included the design of a six-part model definition for “law” and “theory” based on a review of the literature of the philosophy of science with special reference to biology. These model definitions were then compared with those provided in a range of U.S. secondary school biology textbooks. The majority of all current major U.S. secondary school biology texts were reviewed and analyzed with respect to how the concepts of “law” and “theory” were defined and applied, in an attempt to determine whether students and teachers using such texts would gain an accurate impression of these terms and the distinction between them. This study focuses on biology instruction since a life science course is completed as a graduation requirement by virtually all U.S. high school students and as such serves as a widely shared educational experience across the nation. The term “law” is rarely defined in any text but various laws such as those found in genetics are frequently included as examples. The term “theory” is frequently defined but with a wide range of completeness of the definitions. Only rarely are theories in biology included as examples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Allchin, D. (2003). Lawson's shoehorn, or should the philosophy of science be rated "X?" Science and Education, 12(3), 315–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, A. (1998). Biology: The dynamics of life. Ohio: Glencoe/McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, A. (2000). Biology: The dynamics of life. Ohio: Glencoe/McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, R.N. (1997). Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence. Philosophy of Science, Proceeding 1996, 64(2), 444–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • BSCS (1997). BSCS: A human approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • BSCS (1998). BSCS: An ecological approach, 8th edn. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • BSCS (2001). BSCS: A molecular approach, 8th edn. Illinois: Everyday Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N., Reece, J. & Mitchell, L. (1999). Biology, 5th edn. California: Benjamin/Cummings/Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S.S. (1994). A beginner's guide to scientific method. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R. (1966). Philosophical foundations of physics. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eves, H. (1983). An introduction to the history of mathematics. San Francisco, CA: Saunders College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, A. & Lawson, A.E. (1992). The nature of scientific thinking as reflected by the work of biologists and by biology textbooks. The American Biology Teacher, 54(3), 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J. (1988). The case of the creeping fox terrier clone. Natural History, 96(1), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. & Brush, S.F. (2001). Physics, the human adventure. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner, J.K. & Rubba, P.A. (1978). The myth of absolute truth. The Science Teacher, 45(1), 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner, J.K. & Rubba, P.A. (1979). The laws are mature theories fable. The Science Teacher, 46(2), 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. (1974). Philosophy of biological science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G. (1998). Biology: Visualizing life. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G. & Raven, P. (1996). Biology: Principles and explorations. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, G. & Raven, P. (2001). Biology: Principles and explorations. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A.E. (2003). Allchin's shoehorn, or why science is hypothetico-deductive. Science and Education, 12(3), 331–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, L.S. & Bennetta, W.J. (1986). The treatment of theory in textbooks. The Science Teacher, 55(4), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R.W. (1986). Teaching the theories of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 48(6), 344–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R.W. (1988). Biology: a hypothetico-deductive science. The American Biology Teacher, 50(6), 362–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R.W. (1990). Theories, speculation, and the structure of knowledge. Speculations in Science and Technology, 13(1), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losee, J. (1993). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science, 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, E. (1988). Toward a new philosophy of biology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W.F. (1997). Reexamining the nature of science: Lessons of misconceptions and misunderstandings from a science educator. Skeptic, 5(2), 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W.F. & Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. & Levine, J. (2000). Biology: The Living science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K.R. & Levine, J. (2000). Biology, 5th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Educational Research and Training (2003). National curriculum framework: India. Retrieved from http://www.ncert.nic.in/content.htm on July 15, 2003.

  • National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1970). Are there laws in biology? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 48(20), 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1973). The philosophy of biology. London: Hutchinson University Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraer, W.D. & Stoltze, H.J. (1999). Biology: The study of life, 7th edn. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, E. & Lisowski, M. (1998). Biology: The web of life. California: Scott Foresman/ Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, E. & Lisowski, M. (2000). Biology: The history of life. Illinois: Scott Foresman/ Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towle, A. (1999). Modern biology. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McComas, W.F. A Textbook Case of the Nature of Science: Laws and Theories in the Science of Biology. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 1, 141–155 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJMA.0000016848.93930.9c

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJMA.0000016848.93930.9c

Navigation