Science Literature

It is well known that the keystone in a stone arch is crucial for the stability of the arch. Indeed, without a good keystone, the arch will collapse. For many years. Theodosius Dobzhansky has been quoted to affirm that evolutionary theory provides the infrastructure that integrates the whole of biology. This is what he said: "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution." Sometimes, the reference to "evolution" relates specifically to Darwinism/neo-Darwinism, and sometimes the reference is to the concept of evolution rather than any particular mechanism. The imminent Bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his magnum opus is bringing Dobzhansky's words to the fore and applied to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. This is the inference to be drawn from a recent editorial in Scientific American and its accompanying illustration.

Darwinism is said to be a theory that everyone ought to learn (Image source here, Credit Matt Collins)

A major application of this message relates to education. Students need to know about Darwin's theory - indeed, everyone needs to know! The editors conclude:

"One way to celebrate Darwin's birthday is to contemplate how evolutionary studies can achieve broader adoption in secondary and higher education. Natural selection and the complementary idea of how genes, individuals and species change over time should be as much a part of developing critical thinking skills as deductive reasoning and the study of ethics."

It may surprise the Editors of Scientific American, but no one is arguing that natural selection and "how genes, individuals and species change over time" should not be taught. The differences are about how these topics are presented to students and what students are expected to learn. It would have been a welcome contribution to this particular discussion if Glenn Branch and Eugenie Scott had addressed it in their article in Scientific American.

However, instead of engaging with the issues, they devote over three thousand words to a polemic against the supposedly subversive activities of creationists. They bemoan the fact that the Louisiana Science Education Act has become law.

"On its face, the law looks innocuous: it directs the state board of education to "allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied," which includes providing "support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied." What's not to like? Aren't critical thinking, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion exactly what science education aims to promote?
As always in the contentious history of evolution education in the U.S., the devil is in the details. The law explicitly targets evolution, which is unsurprising - for lurking in the background of the law is creationism, the rejection of a scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator."

They are saying, in effect, that the letter of the law sounds fine, but the letter is a front for creationism, lies and deceit. They do not believe that all teachers will abide by the letter. They expect some to promote unwarranted doubts about evolution:

"Allowing teachers to instil scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution is clearly beyond the pale. Yet that is what the Louisiana Science Education Act was evidently created, or designed, to do."

This message is one we have heard many times before, and there is no evidence that it has any validity. There are legitimate concerns about the way Darwinism should be explored in the classroom. Many of us think that natural selection is being asked to do far too much - way beyond the empirical evidence that demonstrates what it can do. Many of us think that observed natural variations should not be used to argue the transformation of life from a single cell to the diversity of living things we see today. The objections to Darwinism are scientific, and they need to be fairly addressed in the education of students. These ideas have been explored numerous times in this blog. Here are examples over the past few months: Evolution, Museums and Society, Cichlid fish - another textbook example of evolution in action?, Hairless Dogs as an example of deleterious mutations, A call for an end to Pseudo-Darwinian hype, Adaptations affecting dim-light vision in vertebrates, The formidable problem of assembling the bacterial flagellum.

Of particular concern is the polemical way the arguments are presented. There is no interaction with the scientific issues, but only a desperate attempt to prove the infiltration of creationism into the fabric of science and education. No doubt many are familiar with Of Pandas and People - but do published "analyses" of the book by evolutionists ever get serious with the science? The same can be said of many other resources produced by ID scientists - instead of a scientific discourse, we are fed with unappetising polemic.

Will 2009 be any different? Will ID scientists be allowed to raise scientific questions about the validity of Darwinism? Will anyone suggesting that there are serious issues to consider be hounded as betrayers of science? What about our young people? Will they be allowed to question whether the evidences presented in the classroom are adequate to support the evolutionary theory in the textbook? We all want to promote a healthy scientific mindset, but a refusal to address the issues critically does not bode well for the future.

The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom
Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott
Scientific American, December 16, 2008

First para: Professors routinely give advice to students but usually while their charges are still in school. Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry at Brown University, recently decided, however, that he had to remind a former premed student of his that "without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn't make sense."

Why Everyone Should Learn the Theory of Evolution
The Editors
Scientific American, December, 2008

First para: Charles Darwin did not think of himself as a genius. "I have no great quickness of apprehension or wit which is so remarkable in some clever men ..." he remarked in one passage of his autobiography. Fortunately for the rest of us, he was profoundly wrong in his assessment. So on February 12 the world will mark the bicentennial birthday of a scientist who holds a rightful place alongside Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein.