Is An Undersatnding Of Evolution Essential To An Understanding Of Biology?

This Pit thread (pages 4,5) was semi-hijacked, so I thought I would bring the discussion here. The (in my mind) extreme position being argued is summed up by this quote from Diogenes the Cynic

with respect to whether evolution should be required study in public schools. Now I happen to believe that evolution should be taught in public schools, but my question is more limited. Is it possible to have a basic understanding of biology at the public school level without instruction in the theory of evolution?

Probably depends on which aspect of biology you’re talking about. For basic things like “This is a left ventrical” or “Brush up and down”, then I’d say no. For developing antibiotics, I’d say absolutely.

Hell, no.

You cover anatomy, you cover cell life cycles, respiration, reproduction, et cetera.

Not necessary at all.

To argue by analogy, as I am so fond - If I am teaching a course on a particular piece of software, I need to make sure the students know how to install it, know about all its features, know about any quirks, possibly teach them about similar, competitive products - what I don’t need to do (but can, if I like) is go into a section about the Waterfall Software Design methodology used to write it, as it has absolutely no bearing on their use of the software.

They will still understand the software. They’ll be able to use it well. If one of them happens to be a future programmer, then and only then would the design methodology become truly relevant.

From the OP-

The moment the question of why a creature is the way it is comes up, evolution comes up. Inquisitive children tend to ask lots of “why” questions.

So your answer is yes? Is it your assertion that biology is the study of “why a creature is”?

I think biology can be understood without evolution, but it’s better understood with it. You can learn the similarities between organisms, without knowing why they are similar. But I think knowing “why” helps many a student.

Yep. As I mentioned in that thread, you can learn about:

Heredity
Cell Structure
Cell processes
The Linnaean Classification System*
Mutlicellular Organisms and their basic body plans
Organ Functions (man, does that cover a lot of territory)
Photosynthesis
… and probably much more

without ever once mentioning evolution.

In fact, at the earliest level (1-5 grades at least) it’s probably counterproductive to teach about evolution-- it’s too advanced a topic, and easily misunderstood. You wouldn’t teach about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity at that stage either, and for a similar reason.

*which, btw, was developed about 100 years before Darwin published his theory. Lineeaus died in 1778.

At a high school level? No, not really. But evolution is one of the most profound human ideas of all time, and not teaching it would be a disservice to the students.

Just keeping score. You do not believe it to be essential to a basic undersatnding. Correct?

Even a cursory study of biology will bring up questions such as, “Why do vastly different organisms share very similar enzymes?”

Unless you want to start introducing philosophy and religion into a science classroom (which many people advocate doing), these questions are best answered with the scientific theory of evolution.

That is really a separate issue, and I would prefer to focus on the narrow question of whether the study of evolution is essential to a basic understanding.

I have been out of high school for a long time. At what level would such a course of study be undertaken?

Correct, IMO it’s not essential. But it’d be a crime (in the figurative sense) not to teach it. Sort of like studying who invented what, without describing why they made their inventions or how they did it.

To anyone who reads this far:

The question is not whether it should be taught, but whether it is ESSENTIAL to a BASIC understanding of biology as it is taught in public schools. In other words, whether a basic understanding of biology would be CRITICALLY COMPROMISED by lack of knowledge of evolution.

It is stipulated that IT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL.

Sorry for the shouting. It was directed at no one in particular.

IMHO:
For teaching Science and specifically Biology, evolution should be taught early on. It does not need to be in depth, but it should be touched on.
To not teach evolution at all is a disservice to students.

It is valid to say you don’t need to teach Evolution to understand much of basic Biology, but it will leave a gaping hole of basic biological understanding.
You can pick almost any field and leave out an aspect or theory but if it is a fundamental theory you would also being doing them a disservice.

While I agree with that, it’s sadly the way most schools work, I’m afraid. I’ve had biology for well nigh nine years in school, and we didn’t get into evolution at all, except tangentially (and this was in Germany). It’s just not really necessary to understand how things work. We covered evolution a little in the year we studied genetics, but essentially, it seems more like you need genetics to understand evolution, rather than the other way around. Of course it’s nice to be able to tell the kids why there are so many queer animals around, or conversely, why so many possible weird animals are not around, but for your basic school education…nope, evolution is not necessary. You’ll find out how the blood system works and how your muscles work, and all the nitty-gritty details, and learn about the nervous system, but evolutionary knowledge does not seem to be a prerequisite for knowing that.

I’m studying to be a teacher of English, and the comparison with the study of literature is possibly apt: you lose a lot of insight into the writings of Shakespeare if you do not put him in his historical context, talk about his predecessors and literary upbringing, but, in the end, you’ll draw enough from Hamlet without all that, and it just saves time that you can spend broadening the kids’ education, rather than deepening it.

I don’t think you capitalized the right words. Had you capitalized UNDERSTANDING, then I’d say yes, it’s essential.

If you want students to memorize a bunch of different, unrelated biological processes and categories, then they don’t need to learn about evolution. But if you want them to understand, then they need an organizing principle; and evolution is a spectacularly robust organizing principle for biology.

Daniel

Can you elaborate? How would you define basic biology specifically? To put it another way, what are the components of a basic understanding of biology at the public school level, and how is knowledge of evolution essential to the understanding of them. We got in trouble in the other thread when the scope of the argument became too large, so please try to focus on this narrow point.

On preview–Lefty, feel free to capitalize ‘understanding’ and respond, if you will, to what I have asked jfranchi.

Without an understanding of evolution, studying biology is just so much button-sorting and rote memorization. There’s nothing wrong with that–that is, after all, how we learn reading, arithmatic, history, and so forth–but it’s only an introductory step, creating a foundation of basic fact and trivia on which to build an appreciation for why biological mechanisms work the way they do. An understanding of how distinct organisms are interrelated, why we get colds from viruses and how we can extract energy by digesting plants, is indeed fundamental to explaining biology, as opposed to listing bits of cellular anatomy on a multiple guess test.

I have to disagree with the notion that evolution is too complex for children to understand; indeed, the concept that species evolve over time ties together disparate aspects of biology, just as an understanding of gravitation and inertia explains how forces act, invisibly, at a distance. It’s trivial, really, to talk about why horses have only a single toe by illustrating the degeneracy of the vestigial splints, or to illustrate the progression from Proailurinae proailurus to Felis silvestris catus (domestic cat).

The mechanism of natural selection, on the other hand, requires at least a basic grasp of game theory, statistics, genetics, biochemistry, and zoology to genuinely comprehend. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t teach evolution to primary students, any more than that we should refuse to teach gravitation even though the best minds among us don’t understand it on a fundamental level. But it does mean that we need to teach these basics first, rather than overstep with a load of disconnected trivia.

Teaching biology without discussion evolution reduces the field to nothing more than dogma and memorized nomenclature. And it reduces the level of discussion and interest accordingly. That people can graduate from high school without even the most basic understanding of evolution and its effect on the everyday world is a travesty, a hallmark of illiteracy on par with not being able to perform simple multiplication or read the newspaper. How can we expect people–citizens who select elective officials and vote in referrendums that affect millions of people for decades–to be able to make any kind of credible assessment of anything pertaining to biology (medicine, phramaceuticals, bioethics, the threat of biological weapons) if they’ve not even the basic underpinnings of a mechanism so profound and prevelent?

So yes…a basic understanding of the evolution, and at least some introduction to the mechanism of natural selection, is essential to understanding (rather than just mouthing) of biology. One might as well teach physics in terms of little invisible faeries manipulating objects or history as a bunch of disconnected facts that have no bearing on events in the world today.

Stranger

Define “basic understanding.”

“This is an animal. It moves. This is a plant. It doesn’t. The animal has a heart. It is a muscle that squeezes blood through its body. The plant moves fluids largely via capillary action. This is a fish stick. It is a fungus.” And so on. It may be basic, but it sure ain’t useful.