Sunday, October 02, 2005
Why Evolution Must be Taught
A case being heard in a Pennsylvania court (see also here and here) is yet the latest round in the 'debate' over what American students should be taught in their science classrooms. Rather than rehash the science-religion dichotomy, I here propose there are at least two very important reasons why evolution must be taught in American schools.
Evolution is Basic Science
The Pennsylvania case was sparked by parent's objections to a local board of education ruling that a disclaimer of sorts was to be read in science classrooms, saying in part that evolution is a "theory, not a fact." This is often cited as reason enough to limit or ban the study of evolution, by those who do not wish it to be taught, or taught without qualification. The very use of the phrase "theory, not fact" indicates a basic ignorance of the scientific method. In common usage, theory can mean anything from emotional reaction to unfounded opinion to unformed notion. In scientific usage, a theory is a generalized statement of knowledge, based upon observable, tangible data arising from the testing of an hypothesis. Gravity is thus "just a theory;" does anyone in any way object to gravity being taught to American pupils?
A study of evolution is basic to the study of science. It is a cental feature of the biological sciences, of course, but the idea that natural phenomena change over time, and that there are natural mechanisms to such change, is common all scientific efforts, from geology to astronomy to medicine, just to name three.
Perhaps the need for a grounding in science is not self-evident to some. But is there a single aspect of our daily lives that is not in some way influenced or affected by scientific knowledge? Consider the role science plays in a nation's economy: shortages in requirements, from oil to flu vaccines, have direct consequences for the inidividual's financial stability, and the nation's economic strenght at the same time. Is is not science that will address these two issues most effectively? Perhaps the two fields that have the most potential for changing the human condition in the twenty-first century are genetics and nanotechnology. Where are the future generations of scientists in these fields going to come from, if they are not first properly educated in primary and secondary classrooms? Do Americans want the social and economic benefits of such science to be the exclusive privilege of other nations? Will Americans be satisfied to go begging for genetic and nanotechnology applications which the rest of the world take for granted?
While American pupils are certainly not at the very bottom of the list, they aren't at the top, when it comes to international comparisons of science and mathematics. What is being taught in those foreign classrooms that gives the edge to those students over Americans? Indeed, to the very best of my knowledge, this 'debate' over evolutuion is only to be found in the US. Certainly, there is no debate in the international scientific community. While there may be competing views of how evolution played out for humankind, no one seriously disputes (in the mainstream scientific community) that evolution did play out. Evolution is basic science, and basic science is central to a nation's prosperity and well-being in the twenty-first century.
The Study of Evolution Can Address Racism
I suspect that in many cases, the religious rhetoric hides a more pernicious evil in American society, the evil of racism. If one studies the current paleoanthropological and genetic evidence, one finds that we are all the same; there is no biological basis for the concept of race. We are all of the same kind, with the same origins. No doubt, this is a very dangerous idea to those who base their politics on intolerance, hatred and control of one group by another. But it seems that danger is the very reason why we must teach, from an early age, the unity of human kind. I am not so naive as to suggest that the study of science and human evolution in particular will solve all of our problems, but if we have the means to address such a problem, shouldn't we? How else can we make things better for all of us?
For the first time in many years, if not ever, I did not have any students drop my intro-level anthropology course because of the study of evolution. Perhaps they will be the tolerant, well-educated leaders of tomorrow who can move their society forward.
Evolution is Basic Science
The Pennsylvania case was sparked by parent's objections to a local board of education ruling that a disclaimer of sorts was to be read in science classrooms, saying in part that evolution is a "theory, not a fact." This is often cited as reason enough to limit or ban the study of evolution, by those who do not wish it to be taught, or taught without qualification. The very use of the phrase "theory, not fact" indicates a basic ignorance of the scientific method. In common usage, theory can mean anything from emotional reaction to unfounded opinion to unformed notion. In scientific usage, a theory is a generalized statement of knowledge, based upon observable, tangible data arising from the testing of an hypothesis. Gravity is thus "just a theory;" does anyone in any way object to gravity being taught to American pupils?
A study of evolution is basic to the study of science. It is a cental feature of the biological sciences, of course, but the idea that natural phenomena change over time, and that there are natural mechanisms to such change, is common all scientific efforts, from geology to astronomy to medicine, just to name three.
Perhaps the need for a grounding in science is not self-evident to some. But is there a single aspect of our daily lives that is not in some way influenced or affected by scientific knowledge? Consider the role science plays in a nation's economy: shortages in requirements, from oil to flu vaccines, have direct consequences for the inidividual's financial stability, and the nation's economic strenght at the same time. Is is not science that will address these two issues most effectively? Perhaps the two fields that have the most potential for changing the human condition in the twenty-first century are genetics and nanotechnology. Where are the future generations of scientists in these fields going to come from, if they are not first properly educated in primary and secondary classrooms? Do Americans want the social and economic benefits of such science to be the exclusive privilege of other nations? Will Americans be satisfied to go begging for genetic and nanotechnology applications which the rest of the world take for granted?
While American pupils are certainly not at the very bottom of the list, they aren't at the top, when it comes to international comparisons of science and mathematics. What is being taught in those foreign classrooms that gives the edge to those students over Americans? Indeed, to the very best of my knowledge, this 'debate' over evolutuion is only to be found in the US. Certainly, there is no debate in the international scientific community. While there may be competing views of how evolution played out for humankind, no one seriously disputes (in the mainstream scientific community) that evolution did play out. Evolution is basic science, and basic science is central to a nation's prosperity and well-being in the twenty-first century.
The Study of Evolution Can Address Racism
I suspect that in many cases, the religious rhetoric hides a more pernicious evil in American society, the evil of racism. If one studies the current paleoanthropological and genetic evidence, one finds that we are all the same; there is no biological basis for the concept of race. We are all of the same kind, with the same origins. No doubt, this is a very dangerous idea to those who base their politics on intolerance, hatred and control of one group by another. But it seems that danger is the very reason why we must teach, from an early age, the unity of human kind. I am not so naive as to suggest that the study of science and human evolution in particular will solve all of our problems, but if we have the means to address such a problem, shouldn't we? How else can we make things better for all of us?
For the first time in many years, if not ever, I did not have any students drop my intro-level anthropology course because of the study of evolution. Perhaps they will be the tolerant, well-educated leaders of tomorrow who can move their society forward.
