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

Great Debates
61

Blake,
Allow me to me observe that it appears that you heve perceived me to be raising objections rather than asking questions; for that, I fault a weakness in my exposition. Let me also note for the third time that it is my personal belief that evolution should be taught in public schools. I simply inquire into whether a basic understanding of biology as it is taught there would be compromised by its absence.

When the question is raised is it necessary to halt the class and begin instruction on the theory of evolution?

Would it be impossible to understand English Literature without learning about Shakespeare?

I am attempting nothing other than an understanding of the topic at hand. I have defined nothing.

Can we teach algebra without exploring calculus?

I am in complete agreement that evolution should be taught, and that Biology is where it should be slotted. Is philosophy part of public school education? Physics? As a non-elective?

Could the teacher not say “there were no machine guns?” Would the teacher need to halt the class and begin instruction in the history of weaponry?

Is teaching the theory of evolution simple?

I don’t have an answer. I am trying to find an answer. You have given me a great deal to think about. Again I thank you for your contribution. I will be away from a computer for a while but trust I will be mulling over what you have said.

I agree that the ability to make critical assessments of claims and observations is a necessary survival skill. I think that if students were taught how to think rather than what to think the world would be a better place. I would like to thank you for your contributions to this thread. As I told Blake, I will be away from the computer for a while but I will be thinking about what you have said.

62

Sorry. I spend a great deal of time around breeders of dogs and feel quite confident that the theory of evolution is a vague concept to many of them.

63

Contrapuntls,

The problem I am having is that you asked whether tecahingof biology is compromised by ignoring evolution and when several posters gave numerous specific examples that showed that it was you then went on to suggest that it wasn’t essential because the objection could be glossed over, the teacher could refuse to answer basic questions or evolution could be taught somewhere outside biology. I’ve explained in some depth the problems with those ‘solutions’ yet you still seem to be insisting that they are not in fact problems.

Nobody is suggesting that a teacher interrupt a unit on botany or ecology to explore evolution in depth. In the same way nobody would suggest interrupting the zoology unit with an in depth exploration of botany because someone asks what cows eat. What the teacher would do of course is simply answer “Cows eat plants” or “Because these animals are closely related” and leave it at that until evolution or botany are taught specifically. In exactly the same way a teacher would indeed say “there were no machine guns?”

The difference here is that you have suggested the teacher not introduce those topics at all, either refusing to answer or simply answering with “That is covered in another unit”. That is clearly silly, and it implies that the answer either doesn’t exist or is incomprehensible without in depth discussion. Of course neither is true and no one would a teacher should refuse to answer such a basic question, except when the answer is ‘evolution”.

So why did you single out evolution for special treatment? Quite clearly if the answer to a basic question is “evolution” then evolution is essential to understanding that subject. Simply by saying “evolution” you have begun teaching evolution, and you can’t answer the question without responding thus. This seems to be the clincher answer to your question. No, you can’t teach basic biology without also teaching evolution, just as you can’t teach military history without teaching basic firearms development.

And yes, teaching evolution is incredibly simple, especially for children with no deeply-held prejudices. Any child over 7 will easily accept that a dog is more closely related to a rabbit than it is to an alligator. That knowledge seems to be almost intuitive and so incredibly easy to teach. Just as we don’t teach children about physics by starting with quantum mechanics so we don’t teach them evolution starting with molecular genetics. We start teaching physics with simple things like stability and we start teaching evolution with t simple things like relatedness. And relatedness is incredibly easy to teach.

Yes we can teach algebra without teaching calculus because calculus doesn’t produce algebra. X + 1 = 7 because x = 6, not because of any integration of 6. Perfectly effective algebra existed before calculus existed and if calculus had never come to exist in this universe we would still have calculus. However this is not true of botany and evolution. Evolution produces botany and ecology. If evolution wasn’t a fact we wouldn’t have botany. Functional flowers didn’t exist before evolution occurred. As a result the only factual answer to most questions in botany is going to be “evolution” in some form.

It’s debatable if it would be possible to understand English literature without Shakespeare. This once again comes back to how you define understand. Nobody denies that you could cram facts into children, but facts don’t equal knowledge. Can a person truly be said to understand English lit if they don’t know what the archetype of all modern literature is? It’s like saying that someone understands cars without knowing what an engine is… or understands ecology without knowing why organisms interact as they do. Such people understand something but it’s at best debatable whether they understand what they claim to. What is not debatable is that such people have massive hole sin their understanding that prohibit them from utilizing their knowledge or even expanding their knowledge in most directions.

So at this point the situation is that it has been demonstrated that a knowledge of evolution is required to understand biology, and that biology can’t be taught honestly without also teaching evolution. At this point you really need to provide some sort of reasoning as to why you would even entertain an opposing proposition. If someone suggested that we could teach maths without teaching about the number 4 or that we teach shop without mentioning hammers you wouldn’t accept that, so why is this any different?

I don’t doubt it is vague, but it exists and it is vital and the better their knowledge the better they will be. Unless you propose that when a favourable mutation shows up they attempt to disseminate it by random breeding or simply leaving the animal in contact with others so the essential element is transferred in humours. Assuming these breeders are engaged in selective breeding then a knowledge of gene frequencies can hardly fail to be of importance to them.

64

1 : People who don’t understand evolution have misused antibiotics, producing antibiotic resistiant bacteria; this has killed many and will kill many more.

2 : Cancer cells evolve resistance to chemotherapy. Skipping treatments will allow resistant cells to flourish, and can easily kill the patient.

3 : They will not oppose the spread of creationism, which promotes bad science. This slows down medical progress, and kills many.

Ignorance is not a virtue.

Yes. That’s the point of suppressing evolution in schools to begin with.

65

Just dug up this article, linked from the wonderful Talk Origins Archive.

I agree wholeheartedly with the author’s thesis, of course. I find it more than a little sad that, more than 30 years after this article was written, the absolutely fundamental importance of evolution to biology as a science apparently isn’t widely appreciated.

66

I already gave you two (the lesson about overusing antibiotics or insecticides).

67

Pfft. Schmeiser knew damn well what he was doing and lied his ass off in court.

68

I believe that, and you believe that, but this is GD. You need to have something to support your opinion. Schmeiser says that it was ignorance of evolution that led to him accidentally producing GM canola and the court said that he should have known.

As such this is a perfect example for the question posed. Had Schmeiser not been ignorant of evolution then by his own admission he would be tens of thousands of dollars better off.

69

How do you define “basic understanding of biology”?

IMO, evolution is a basic element of biology in itself. As such, it should be taught even if it’s not necessary for the understanding of other parts of biology.

To give an example, you could teach about geography and climates in different parts of the world without mentionning that the earth is round. It could wait until the students are taught about weather patterns or somesuch. However, the shape of the earth is such a fundamental piece of knowledge that it should be taught regardless.

70

You could ask the same question about probably half, if not 90% of what is taught in high school. What’s the point of teaching history, for instance? Is it important to know about the shape of our organs, or that they’re made out of cells? What noticeable disadvantage would you have if you never have heard of cells?

71

Just to add : “where do we come from?” is one of the most blatantly obvious question we’ve always asked. We’ve part of the answer with evolution. The general concept of evolution can be easily taught and understood.
So, for what reason exactly this very basic element of knowledge should be excluded? You’re asking the reverse question, and I think it’s not warranted because evolution is a much more important concept than most other elements taught in biology classes.

72

I think there are two separate meanings of “basic” in use in this thread. One being “forming a basis” and one being “simple, not detailed”. I think the OP is referring exclusively to the latter meaning.

Yes, it is possible to teach a simple version -it would have to be overly-simplistic, stunted, misleading, a virtually useless smattering - of a subject that could pass as “biology” without mentioning evolution. But evolution is a basis for biology and an unavoidable one for any meaningful treatment of the subject.

73

If a kid asks “Missie, why does a seahorse look like a horse?”, then what should she answer it?

74

One who has been introduced to the basic concepts of genetics (e.g. punnet square, familiarity with Mendalian experiments with plants) is the most important IMHO. In addition to this, a rudimentary but solid grasp of photosynthesis, mammalian organ systems, natural selection, cellular respiration and the cell cycle is absolutely essential. If an individual has gone through the aforementioned, I’d consider them having a basic foundation in biology.

  • Honesty
75

Honestly? If the teahcer doesn’t know (and most wouldn’t) then she shouldn’t attempt answer but simply admit ignorance.

The answer I’d give is that they don’t really look much alike outside of Disney cartoons. Explain that animals have evolved different mouths to allow them to eat different types of food, such as birds with beaks to crack seeds or lions with big mouths full of sharp teeth for eating naughty children.

The heads of seahorses and horses heads look kind of the same because both of them have evolved to take in small peices of food that they reach using their mouths. Horses eat tiny blade sof grass while seahorses eat tiny bugs that live in the water. Because of that they both have small mouths on the end of long heads because the food is small but the long head gived them reach Contrast that design with the the long head and big mouth of a dog or the short head big mouth of a lion or most other fish. But they don’t really look much alike, as most kids would see if you showed them pictures of a real seahorse and a real horse.

But as you can see any meaningful answer incorporates a basic undertstanding of evolution and the concept that animals have forms that suit their lifestyle and environement. In this instance you’ve actually introduced the concept of convergent evolution which will doubtless arise again when the child learns that whales are mammals. The things is that now the child has the basic knowlegde to make a guess about why whales and fish look so much alike.

So basically you are saying that the individual will be familiar with evolution. After all by the time you’ve covered basic genetics, natural selection and the cell cycle you will have covered evolution fairly thoroughly if it is taught honestly. Natural selection particularly is just another way of saying evolution.

(I’m surprised that you don’t consider ecology to be required for a basic understanding of biology.)

76

All this knowledge of biology, and you think that antibiotics kill viruses? :dubious:

77

Yeah, I realized after I posted this what I’d said and hoped nobody would notice.

78

:smiley: I believe I’ve been there…

79

Selective breeding is only a tiny fragment of the picture of evolution. My biology classes covered inheritance with the section on dominant and recessive genes long before it covered evolution. Selective Breeding != Evolution; it is a necessary precursor to understanding evolution.

Selective Breeding - sounds like he understood it intuitively. Evolution? Has nothing to do with the case. Sounds like his lack of relevant knowledge was in the field of patent law.

80

Which is why it’s important for biological specialists we commonly call ‘Doctors’ to be aware of this. And again, I’ll say evolution is a much larger notion than selective breeding.

See above.

There aren’t enough rolleyes smileys in the world.