Not teaching evolution in a biology class would be akin to ignoring the elephant in the room. We’ve established that some of you have extremely minimalist definitions of ‘essential’ - if it’s not needed on a daily basis in one’s adult life, it doesn’t need to be taught in high school. This definition jettisons 95% of what is taught in school in the first place. If you want to throw out English, foreign languages, science, gym, art, pretty much anything but reading and simple arithmetic, fine. But if you include any reasonable level of sophistication in ‘essential’, evolution needs to be there.
Have any of you arguing against it taken advanced biology classes? Every enzyme, biological process, organ and characteristic must be understood in the context of evolution.
I get a real feeling there’s a hell of a lot of talking past each other going on around here. Seems there’s perhaps a bit of confusion about “knowing facts encountered in the study of biological science” and “knowing how to relate those facts using biological science”.
The study of biology is, admittedly, exremely heavy on the former, because there’s quite simply so very much to know. An overwhelming abount to know, in fact, to navigate the modern biological landscape and not be utterly confused by all disparate areas of specialization. Meanwhile, you can get all the essentials and a heaping helping of the nuances about evolution in a single book of maybe 100 pages, if skillfully written. It’s natural, given this fact-laden approach to the teaching of biology, perhaps, to see evolution as somewhat ancillary to the pursuit of biological knowledge.
I’d still contend that the whole edifice would collapse into a chaos of essentially disconnected parts without that conceptual foundation, and if one hasn’t understood evolution, one simply hasn’t understood life. I’d go so far as to say “that which can evolve” is the chief defining characteristic of life, and hence a science of life is bereft without evolution as its core.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. I agree-- you can’t teach physics without teaching manh (or it would be **extremely **hard to do so). I was objecting to your analogy, not claiming that Physics can be taught w/o math. I didn’t think that was in dispute, so I didn’t affirm it. But: Evolution is Biology as Math is to Physics is incorrect.
Can you expand on this? What are the flawed assumptions and in what way is it “just plain wrong”. I know he got some of the details wrong (whales from bears, for example), but the overall framework and theoretical underpinning remains largely true today, no?
Despite Cervaise’s taking of his ball and going home, I’m glad to see that someone recognizes that while 99.99% of organisms may foster descendants that evolve, evolution isn’t intrinsic to all life.
I do think Evolution should be taught. I do. That’s NOT what this debate is about.
To deepn one’s understanding of biology, evolution is a good topic. However, it is my position that because it is not something that an organism does, but rather a progression that descendants undergo, it is anything but basic.
And despite assertions to the contrary, I think it makes a pretty poor framework to teach biology from. Frameworks are good. Evolution is a poor one for biology. Why?
Well, let’s take cell division. Pretty intrinsic to life’s little processes like growth and reproduction. But it doesn’t relate directly to evolution. Evolution’s too specific. Let’s take they way muscles metabolize ATP for energy. Again, hard to relate back to your framework.
A framework should be like an essay’s thesis statement - everything that follows should relate back to it, pretty directly. A good framework for biology is a definition of life and the processes that define a living thing. Growth, Reproduction, Energy intake, etc. I forget the list these days. That makes a good outline. And in the section on reproduction you get into inheritance and selective breeding, and natural selection.
In the sister thread to this one, I outlined my view of the tiers of “educational subjects by level of necessity” - and noted there that while it is possible to survive in the modern world while illiterate or innumerate, one would be at a significant disadvantage. Literacy is not something that comes in handy if you need to tighten the screws on your bicycle, it’s being able to interpret the symbology you are bombarded with on a continual basis in our society.
First off Darwin never said that whales came form bears or anything like that. He in fact said that the evidence of the day was that whales were fairly closely related to sheep and other hoofed animals, an amazing prediction really. He did say that under some circumstances it would be conceivable that a bear could become whale like, which is certainly true, but he never suggested that whales came from bears.
As far as the flawed assumptions, the biggest one is his repeated reliance on Lamarkism. Darwin repeatedly said that habit could become so entrenched as to be passed on to the offspring, such that for example a duck that never had to fly would produce ducklings with shorter wings, not because of selection or environmental differences but because the habit was passed onto the offspring. He even specifically said that instincts could be acquired by habit in one generation and then transmitted to future generations. This has since been falsified time and again.
Look, Darwin was a clever chap but his work is about as relevant to the teaching of biology in the 21st century as Copernicus’ wok is in teaching astrophysics. It was a valiant effort made with severely limited information, but it was just the first leap on a long journey. I suggest you read “Origin of Species”. It’s astounding what Darwin got right but it’s equally astound what he got wrong, often missing the truth by so little that it seems astounding that he missed it at all. So for example he concluded that unintentional selection could have resulted in fatter pigs, but then concluded that dairy cows have larger udders because they have been milked twice a day for so many generations, not because farmers selected for the best milk providers. It’s almost mind blowing how stupid a brilliant man can appear to be.
In fact exactly the opposite is true. It doesn’t make any sense outside of an evolutionary framework. The first question I always got when teaching undergrads the basics of muscle physiology is “that’s really dumb”. And they were right, the way muscles metabolise ATP is really dumb. Muscles work backwards, they don’t use ATP to generate force, they use ATP to prevent* them providing force. It’s like having a car that runs without fuel, but you need to burn 5 gallons an hour to when it’s parked in your garage.
So how are you going to explain that outside an evolutionary framework? It makes perfect sense when you realise that muscles evolved from reactive microfibrils in protists, but it makes no sense at all from any other perspective.
Or do we just ignore the elephant in the room? Do we teach about muscles and ATP without explaining why muscles cramp or why rigor sets in after death when the muscles have no ATP available? Or do we just pretend that this happened for no reason at all?
And indeed everything in biology does relate back to evolution pretty directly. You can certainly explain how muscles use ATP without invoking evolution, but you can never know why the do it. You can explain the steps of mitosis, but you can never explain why. Those things just become isolated chunks of nothing, with no connection to anything. They are complex and inefficient processes that are learned for no reason other than the teacher demands you learn them.
Bouncing Buddha. I won’t apologize for not being aware of your comments in another thread.
The question in the title is whether an understanding of evolution is essential to an understanding of biology. The elaboration is
The question is not whether the public school student (I’m taking this to refer to grades K-12 in the US) can memorize lists of unrelated biology facts without understanding evolution. The question is not whether the student can understand how specific biological processes work without understanding evolution. The question isn’t whether understanding biology is essential to life.
The question is whether, in order to understand biology, one must understand evolution. For the reasons I’ve offered, I strongly believe that it is.
I’m glad I made someone happy in this thread I would like to also point out that reproduction isn’t intrinsic to life either. It’s just something practically all life does given the chance.
Thank you for clearing that up. I think I understand what you’re saying.
Let me try to clarify my position: to understand how organisms work I agree with you that a definition of life (reproduction, energy intake and all that) gives you a good basic framework to organize most of that knowledge.
However, that’s not all there is to biology. If you want to understand why all kinds of organisms manage these tasks in wildly different or quite similar ways, evolution gives you a good, reasonably simple scientific framework for understanding that. It might not be absolutely essential to understanding how a specific (part of an) organism works, but it is essential in understanding why. In that way, evolution is crucial to understanding life on earth and therefore it is essential to an understanding of biology.
I agree, and will add that kids ask “Why?” a lot more often than they ask “How?” Evolution, in other words, answers the questions about biology that kids ask. If you ignore the questions that kids ask, insisting instead on answering questions that they’re not asking, you’re going to alienate them from learning. If you answer the questions that they ask, you’re going to make learning seem interesting, relevant, and important.
Right, the bears thing was conjecture about what might happen. I messed that one up.
I think at this point you’re playing semantic games. Of course Darwin got some things wrong, but he got a long of things right, and we commonly use the term “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection” to refer to Natural Evolution (as opposed to, say, selective breeding by humans). The fact that we’ve added much to the original theroy (genetics, for example) doesn’t make any less Darwin’s baby. Darwin is to Evolutionary Biology as Newton is to Physics (not Copernicus).
cricetus’ response in the Pit thread corrected me in that I should have posted in this thread instead:
To which I’d like to add:
While in the other thread, and here, I’ll argue against it’s “basic-ness” in education I would certainly want my own children to learn it. That’s because I believe in a broad education but could see a parent opting for a more nuts&bolts style.
Evolution is “basic biology” if you are working in a biology field (like that farmer in the earlier Monsanto posts), but is it basic to anyone else? In addition to the concept of genetic inheritence, I would think that an auto mechanic could get by with a decent understanding of his own anatomy, cell structure and the cell structure of common bacterias/viruses.
I guess an experiment we could all do is poll people we think are useful members of society and see if they have an understanding of evolution or not. lol.
re: insecticides/antibiotics
Isn’t a simple understanding of inheritance sufficient for understanding the problems of antibiotic overuse? Was not breeding for inheritable traits known long before the grander mechanism of evolution?
For the record, just in case I wasn’t clear, I do agree with this (“If one truly wishes to understand, then yes, one must understand the foundations.”).
Personally, by “speak authoritatively”, I would mean that not only does an individual know what the taxonomic scheme is, but what the implications of that scheme are. We all learn the old “kingdom phylum class order family genus species” scheme somewhere along the way. But few people learn about the implications of that scheme (e.g., that the presence of ranks actually limits the amount of information obtainable by the scheme; the equivalent ranking of Reptilia, Mammalia and Aves as “Classes” has quite possibly done as much damage to the understanding of evolution at the K-12 level, and probably even beyond, as anything else. This is the primary reason why the whole silly argument about “transitional fossils” exists in the first place). In fact, I would go so far as to state that so long as Linnaean taxonomy is taught as the de facto classification scheme at all, students will be unable to speak authoritatively about taxonomy. But then, I doubt that anyone really expects K-12 students to be able to speak authoritatively on any subject, to be honest.
Except, as I noted above, the treaching of Linnaean taxonomy to the exclusion of other taxonomic schemes tends to obscure evolution, rather than elucidate it. As was noted previously, the scheme was crafted by a creationist, and it has since been shoe-horned into an evolutionary context. The result is an imperfect understanding of taxonomy and evolution. The whole idea of an “evolutionary ladder” is undoubtedly a direct consequence of the teaching of Linnaean taxonomy.
Ultimately, students are neither taught evolution nor taxonomy in a satisfactory manner throughout most of the U.S.
I think evolution is more akin to a Grand Unification Theory for biology than it is a fundmental concept. As has been noted, one can certainly be taught numerous facts of biology without mentioning evolution. But to actually make sense of it all, and to get the “big picture”, learning about evolution is necessary. Plus, the ability to understand evolution in the first place is dependent on having a basic understanding of even more fundamental principles, such as reproduction, heredity and variation.
I’m glad you said that first, I was thinking the same analogy. I wanted to joke maybe we should stop teaching kids physics until we solidify the GUF and can teach it to them. Otherwise we aren’t giving kids the “basics”.
Sure. And many chemical reactions were known–and used to produce compounds–long before atomic theory came to be. But we wouldn’t even consider an introductory course in chemistry without putting the periodic table of elements early in the syllabus.
You can teach individual mechanisms in absence of the context of evolution. You can also teach historical events in absence of the preceding history that formulated the attitudes and decisions which led up to the events. But doing so leaves a wide gulf of knowledge which is fundamental to understanding how and why the decisions leading up to the event were made. Similarly, failing to introduce evolution into a study of biology fails to offer a context for why mechanisms are the way they are. Why does the laryngeal nerve loop around like a Boston thuroughfare on its way from the brain to the larnyx? Sure, you can describe this in basic anatomy without ever delving into the explaination of it–a surgeon need not invoke Darwin in order to remember that he must avoid severing the nerve–but not considering the evolutionary path that lead to such a compromised feature leaves the hanging question: Who the fuck designed this thing? (If not for natural selection, we’d assume it was designed by the same people who build the M2 Bradley Infantry Carrier.) In fact, understanding that it wasn’t “designed”, but was rather the result of a cummulation of environmental pressures that resulted in such a convoluted design gives us an entry to consider that question.
Does the average person need to know this? The average person isn’t going to practice thoracic surgery. Heck, the average person can’t even spell “laryngeal”. The average person doesn’t even need to know much more than how to drive a car, count change, and dial a telephone. That doesn’t mean that the goal of primary education should be limited to supporting only those skills needed for vocational competence; the goal ought be (and nominally is) to provide the necessary basis for a student to be able to make sense out of the real world; and without understanding at least the very basic principles of evolution, the organic part of the world doesn’t make any sense at all. (Hence the proliferation of religions, mysticism, and other pseudo- or nonscientific attempts to explain the behavior and characteristics of animals.
Will knowing this make you a better hunter-gatherer? Probably not. Will it make you a better mechanics? The Magic Eight Ball says “No”. Will it make you better able to understand innovations in genetic engineering or evaluate the position of a bioethicist who claims that trying to extend human lifespan is “immoral” or “against nature”? Hmmmm…
Education isn’t about memorizing information; it’s about developing critical thinking skills that allow you to extract information from your environment. Plato understood this (even if many of his surmises turned out to be wrong). Evolution–the fact that species undergo change with respect to time–is a fundamental and inevitable part of the study of biology. You can ignore it, just as you can teach “basic physics” without reference to the calculus that underlies an accurate explaination of physical principles, but you do so at the cost of teaching a crippled form of biology. Why anyone would choose to do this, other than fear that evolution contradicts some narrow-minded and inaccurate belief about the world, is beyond me.
You can draw any parallels that you like, the fact is that Darwin’s theory has long since been falsified. If you want to use it as sloppy shorthand for something else that’s fine, I apprecaite the need for sloppy shorthand but it still doesn’t answer my question.
I asked for the definition of evolution being employed by some posters here. Responding with “Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, but not really Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, really something else about Natural Evolution” hasn’t clarified anything at all.
This isn’t a semantic game, your definition has become circular. I asked what was meant by ‘evolution’. You have brought it down to “Natural Evolution”, since that is what you mean when you say Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection. Hopefully you can see that that is no clarification at all. When you say evolution you mean natural evolution. Your definition of evolution actually includes the word evolution. It puts us no further ahead.
There’s no semantic game here, you haven’t in any way answered the question or clarified the issue by introducing Darwin because when you refer to Darwin you are referring to evolution, the very thing you seek to define via Darwin.
Try again perhaps.
Well I wouldn’t argue with that. The fact is that in reality anyone who hasn’t done either postgraduate study or had at l0 least 10 years experience working in a field probably can’t speak authoritatively on the subject by your standard.
I won’t argue that either. Outside the US the Linneaean system isn’t the sole system taught of course, so this all becomes rather self-referential. US students are incompetent in taxonomy because they aren’t taught evolution and evolutionary cladistics.
Surely that is evidence that evolution is needed to teach biology isn’t it?
I don’t see it as “similar” at all. Human interactions are something all humans will encounter. Therefore deeper knowledge could be considered basic. The peculiarities of of the evolution of nerve pathways, not so much.
Look. You said you need a definition because evolution might mean selective breeding. Yeah, right, whatever. Semantic games aren’t my bag here. We’re done.
I take it that means you can’t provide a defintion that isn’t circular. It would have been easier just to say so. In fact since I wasn’t asking oyu to provide a defintion at all you could probably have said nothing
Evolution = Darwin’s Theory
What does Darwin’s Theory mean?
Darwin’s Theory = natural evolution
So what does evolution mean in “Natural evolution”?
Evolution = Darwin’s Theory
And so ad infinitum.
Funny stuff, almost as funny as thinking that it’s a semantic argument to point out that a defintion can’t include the word it is seeking to define.
I would like to also point out that reproduction isn’t intrinsic to life either. It’s just something practically all life does given the chance.