Uncommon Descent Contest 20: Why should human evolution be taught in school?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 16, 2010

Contests}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I just came across this fact in the journal Nature: Little is known about human evolution other than basic outline.

Note: This contest has been judged. Go here for announcement.

So, contrary to widely heard huffing, there are huge gaps in our understanding of early humans. In Nature’s 2020 Visions (7 January 2010) Scroll down to Leslie C. Aiello, and we learn

Most of the recent effort in hominin palaeontology has been focused on Africa and Europe. But the announcement in 2004 of the small hominin Homo floresiensis in Indonesia was a warning that we are naive to assume we know more than the basic outline of human evolutionary history. If H. floresiensis is indeed a surviving remnant of early Homo that left Africa around 2 million years ago, we have to reject the long-standing idea that Homo erectus was the first African emigrant. We also must reject many hypotheses concerning the prerequisites for this emigration, such as a relatively large brain size, large body size and human-like limb proportions. Importantly, we must confront our relative ignorance about human evolution outside Europe and Africa.- “Hominin paleontology”

Now, I don’t believe for a moment that 2020 is going to yield a whole lot more information, as Mr. Aiello* hopes – more likely a whole lot more grant applications, as more people graduate and need a focus for their work.

That doesn’t mean the work isn’t worth doing. It does, however, raise a key question: Why are people expected to learn in school whatever evolution story is currently taken seriously – by whomever and for whatever reason?

When I was in school fifty years ago, we struggled through polynomials, the life cycle of the common toad, and how to behave on stage when putting on a fragment of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar – facts that were not under dispute and unlikely to change in the lifetime of anyone present.

Anyway, courtesy of the Discovery Institute, I have a copy of David Berlinski’s The Deniable Darwin, for the best answer to the question: Why is human evolution, in its actual present state, compulsorily taught in schools? Why are people going to court in order to force the teaching?

Here are the contest rules. Winners get a certificate as well as the prize. You do not need to give me your actual address, just an address I can send the prize to, and we never save addresses for a mailing list.

*Aiello is President, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

Comments

EvilSnack @ 16
Don’t say, “God did it.” Don’t say, “Darwin did it.” Say, “The topic is a matter of public controversy. Therefore it cannot be taught in our public schools.”
It may be a matter of public controversy but it is not a matter of scientific controversy. While there is still vigorous debate and research in many areas, it would be false to suggest we have learned nothing that could be properly taught to public school students. The public controversy has arisen because some tenets and findings of evolutionary theory contradict the religious beliefs, primarily, of young-Earth creationists. If they wish to deny their children access to that information in their churches and private schools then, unfortunately, that is their prerogative. However, that does not give them the right to deny it in public schools to students who do not share those beliefs.Seversky_{January 17, 2010
January
01
Jan
17
17
2010
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Oramus @ 15
Rather, a dichotomy between abiogenesis and moleculary evolution is purposefully being asserted to avoid the hard questions of explaining the transitional phases of evolution. Treating phases of evolution as separate events solves the logical, rational dilemma but ultimately deprives us of understanding the whole system.
Reductionism has been given a bad name but breaking a complex problem down into its component parts can still be a productive approach. Obviously, the ultimate goal is to able to explain in detail the entire sequence of events that led from basic chemicals to living creatures like ourselves, if that is in fact what happened. That does not prevent science from focusing more narrowly on different sections of that sequence, such that knowledge is built up incrementally, or from teaching those bits of knowledge in schools that have been established with a high degree of confidence. 15 Oramus 01/17/2010 2:35 am Seversky, The question is, once life did establish itself (say 2.7 Billion years ago), when did natural selection take over the day-to-day management of biological develepment? How did selection affect the non sexually reproducing organisms at that time? As well, moving down the chronological scale to say 1.8 billion years ago, how did competitive pressure way in on these early organisms resulting in endo-symbiosis? Rather, a dichotomy between abiogenesis and moleculary evolution is purposefully being asserted to avoid the hard questions of explaining the transitional phases of evolution. Treating phases of evolution as separate events solves the logical, rational dilemma but ultimately deprives us of understanding the whole system.Seversky_{January 17, 2010
January
01
Jan
17
17
2010
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

O'Leary
facts that were not under dispute and unlikely to change in the lifetime of anyone present.
That humans evolved is not under dispute. That will never change. The specific details might, as more information is uncovered over time but the fact will remain that humans evolved. The fact remains, and will never change, that man and ape have a common ancestor. So why not teach it? How would you go about explaining origins in a science class? Say nothing? Why say nothing when there are indisputable facts available? ID has nothing to offer in that class. The bible has more details regarding the origin of life then ID does.h.pesoj_{January 17, 2010
January
01
Jan
17
17
2010
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Rather, a dichotomy between abiogenesis and moleculary evolution is purposefully being asserted to avoid the hard questions of explaining the transitional phases of evolution. Treating phases of evolution as separate events solves the logical, rational dilemma but ultimately deprives us of understanding the whole system.
What about applying a similar reasoning to the universe? We learned quote a lot even before we discovered the universe wasn’t steady state but had a beginning and is ‘evolving’.Cabal_{January 17, 2010
January
01
Jan
17
17
2010
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Why are people going to court in order to force the teaching [of human evolution]?
Just as a factual matter, (1) is the question about human evolution (sorry, but the sentence is unclear so I thought I should check)? (2) what examples are there of people going to court to force the teaching of evolution. If the answer to Q1 is "no", Q2 is moot, naturally.Heinrich_{January 17, 2010
January
01
Jan
17
17
2010
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

camanintx asks "As opposed to what?" As opposed to not covering the origin and prehistoric development of life at all. Dropping the topic of life's origin and prehistoric development would change very little in the teaching of biology. Students can still learn the observable and repeatably testable characteristics of biological systems. This all strikes to the heart of why we need a First Amendment; not to keep a certain secular vision in power, but to keep those who want to win at all costs from running to the government to get a bigger megaphone. In former times, different churches vied to be the 'official church' at the expense of everyone else's, and so our Founding Fathers sought to avert that by prohibiting the Congress from taking part in the debate. But now we have several issues of public controversy, and in each case the contestants are looking to the government to back them up. So with evolution, also with AGW, gay marriage, etc. Unless and until someone explains (and does not, as some do, merely assert) how a knowledge of evolution is needful in order to understand the Krebs cycle, or population dynamics, then I'm all for dropping the subject of life's origins and prehistoric development entirely from the curriculum. As for privately-funded schools, let those who pay those pipers call the tune. Don't say, "God did it." Don't say, "Darwin did it." Say, "The topic is a matter of public controversy. Therefore it cannot be taught in our public schools."EvilSnack_{January 17, 2010
January
01
Jan
17
17
2010
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

Seversky, The question is, once life did establish itself (say 2.7 Billion years ago), when did natural selection take over the day-to-day management of biological develepment? How did selection affect the non sexually reproducing organisms at that time? As well, moving down the chronological scale to say 1.8 billion years ago, how did competitive pressure way in on these early organisms resulting in endo-symbiosis? Rather, a dichotomy between abiogenesis and moleculary evolution is purposefully being asserted to avoid the hard questions of explaining the transitional phases of evolution. Treating phases of evolution as separate events solves the logical, rational dilemma but ultimately deprives us of understanding the whole system.Oramus_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

Barb @ 10
Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter.
If that is what Miller actually claims in the textbook then I would have to disagree. The theory of evolution is an attempt to describe and explain how life on Earth changed and diversified after it had appeared. Abiogenesis is the field of research trying to establish if and how life could have emerged from non-living matter. The two fields are clearly and closely linked but that does not mean they are the same.Seversky_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT}

Darwin's take on the biological development of organisms is required reading for the simple reason that there is a certain segment of the human population that sees religion as the root of conflict. What is the litany of grievances against religious intolerance? The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Islamic Fundamentalisms, Christian Fundamentalism; just a few in a long list I imagine. It seems the goal is to condition children as early as possible to help wean them off the religious breast (for want of a more original phrase, I beg your pardon). Note how the strawman argument goes: religion=irrational=unstable=conflict; secular=rational=stable=harmony. So viewing evolution through Darwinian spectacles is one of the pillars, which this secular tradition rests upon. IMO, the main reason Neo-Darwinism aka The Modern Synthesis (soon to be revised as The Extended Modern Synthesis I hear-TEMOS sounds like a good enough acronym) is being fought in the courts is that the more it is defending in public discourse (debates between ID and ND) the more ND loses its appeal as a rational collection of concepts. Note this is not lost on props of ND either- hence the preemptive attempts to deflect attention to the irrationality of ND on such sites as PT - see the latest installment that tags religiously minded folks with having a tortucan mentality. Yet ironically, propping up the TMS is a classic case of tortucanism. Hence the gargantuan proportions and complexity of the mish mash collection of concepts-all observations are compatible with Darwinian processes. There isn't an observation that ND couldn't handle! So it seems The TMS is this big behemoth being crushed under the weight of its own hedge bets. And lo and behold its being fed even more! Folks, just make sure you are not near the crash site. And take preventive measures against the tsunamis and earthquakes sure to follow.
Why is human evolution, in its actual present state, compulsorily taught in schools? Why are people going to court in order to force the teaching?
Oramus_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Barb-sorry if that was a bit strong. But I think it leaves ID open for attacks such as #2 and #6. I should also mention that my perspective is that of ID, with front-loading and limited common descent (such as Behe's species-orders). Random mutation is not the process of biological change. As for #1-I do have a design based research proposal. It has been proposed by Darwinists that an evolutionary mistake has occurred-that our mutation (genetic entropy) versus breeding rate is out of line, and that we will accumulate deleterious mutations, and go extinct. One might emotionally ask why a designer would allow this-but that is not the question to ask. Here is the question: Whatever genetic mechanism allows for the persistence of design PAST this edge cannot be evolved by natural means-it would have no utility until that point at which it is needed, the very same point at which the species has gone extinct. It cannot be selected for, or evolved. It is quite distinct from normal DNA repair mechanisms-those are in place, and yet we accumulate mutations. Find it, and there is your firm evidence against evolution, and for front-loading. References: Malarz K. The risk of extinction - the mutational meltdown or the overpopulation. Theory Biosci. 2007 Apr;125(2):147-56 Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD: High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids. Nature 1999;397:344-347. Crow JF: The odds of losing at genetic roulette. Nature1999;397:293-294. Müller HJ: Our load of mutations. Am J Hum Genet1950;2:111-176. 4 Cummins J: Evolutionary forces behind human infer-tility. Nature 397;557-558. Oh, and we need not wait for humans to go extinct. Other organisms seem appropriate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/pubmed/11430651?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=7REC_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Barb, I don't know where in Ken Miller's book it says that this was done without a Creator. In fact, it is fairly dispassionate, with statements like "Scientists have proposed a hypothesis..." and then considering the underlying issues and assumptions. I'm not sure why omitting the proposed driving force: is inherently wrong, be it design, creation, or natural processes. You are correct that if he said: Pros and Cons of God and drew up a chart, that the textbook would never be published. Btw, Is your statement "subtly climbing the wall of separation of Church and State" a dig against ID? Seems like a Dover-era caricature.REC_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

Evolution is the theory underlying all of biology, at least according to my son’s biology textbook (co-authored by Ken Miller). Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then it reproduced and, it is said, changed (by means of random mutations and natural selection) into different kinds of living things, eventually producing all forms of plant and animal life that has ever existed on Earth. All of this is said to have been done without the need of supernatural intervention by a Creator. Evolution is taught because, right now, it is all that can be taught without overtly (or subtly) climbing the wall of separation between church and state. By narrowly defining science as that which can be observed and tested via the scientific method, evolution is the only game in town as far as scientists and educators are concerned. While highly educated people might believe evolution to be true, it should be noted that not all agree. The difference might be best explained by motive, but this is never covered in textbooks. Viewing scientists as a group and not criticizing them individually, which group would likely be more honest – those who believe in creation and feel accountable to God, or those who believe they are products of chance and are accountable only to themselves? Everyone should examine the evidence for themselves and determine what they should believe – evolution or creation.Barb_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

O’Leary is spot on. Schools have limited budgets and students have a finite number of “teachable moments” due to attention span and other distractions in their lives. Yet why is a course in evolution required for graduation from many schools, while other math and science courses, having far greater obvious utility, are optional? The answer is simple. The one really great utility of the evolution class, is that it functions as a catechism for naturalism. It is the “creation myth” for the current popular religion of our culture. Like any good catechism course, what truly matters is that it is required. Otherwise, instead of being indoctrinated into believing that their existence is a mindless accident, young impressionable minds might wonder if maybe the apparent design were infect the result of a a real design. And we all know where that might lead………..It might even lead to the worst of all possible outcomes, they might become IDers. Horrors!!!PaintedTurtle_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

O'Leary is spot on. Schools have limited budgets and due to attention span and other distractions in their lives, students have a finite number of "teachable moments". Yet why is a course in evolution required for graduation from many schools, while other math and science courses, having far greater obvious utility, are optional? The answer is simple. The one really great utility of the evolution class, is that it functions as a catechism for naturalism. It is the "creation myth" for the current popular religion of our culture. Like any good catechism course, what truly matters is that it is required. Otherwise, instead of being indoctrinated into believing that their existence is a mindless accident, young impressionable mights might wonder if maybe the apparent design were intact the result of a a real design. And we all know where that might lead…….It might even lead to the worst of all possible outcomes, they might become IDers. Horrors!!!PaintedTurtle_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

O'Leary asks: "Why should human evolution be taught in school?" As opposed to what?camanintx_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Human evolution ought to be taught in schools because it is one of the best cases for common descent. This is probably a result of the extra interest among scientists concerning human evolution. Even creationists and students sympathetic to ID ought to be taught the best argument for Darwinism so that if they want to argue against it they do so against the best scenario the opposition has to offer. Otherwise, those supportive of traditional Darwinism will sense a straw man argument and end up being inoculated against further, more refined and honest arguments. Some careless creationists in the '80s made this mistake causing further, more compelling arguments to be dismissed before being further evaluated. Human evolution, being taught, does inform students of a lot of ideas that are not necessarily against ID or even creationism. Presumably even creationists (most of them) will concede that homo erectus did exist as some kind of now-extinct species. Students can be presented with the fact of the bones (or lack thereof) and they can make their own conclusions. My hope is that teachers will present evolution's best arguments but not endeavor to indoctrinate students. Maybe that is a fine line, but it can be done, and is the honest way to go about it.Collin_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Retroman:
Human evolution is taught because it is settled science.
By what definition of science is it "settled science"? How the heck can we even test the premise?Joseph_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Human evolution is taught because it is settled science. Some small details might change, which is to be expected, but the general outline is settled. People go to court to defend the teaching of settled science in science classes, because other people are trying to get their religious mythologies taught as science.Retroman_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Why is human evolution, in its actual present state, compulsorily taught in schools?
Because it has a nice elegant narrative- ie it makes for a good story. Kids like stories- especially good stories. And when kids start to question the story it is best to squash them when they are small. Can't have them grown up and still questioning it. Besides as Mayr once said- "We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred"- so no worries mate.
Why are people going to court in order to force the teaching?
Because most people do not accept the idea so forced indoctrination is the only way.Joseph_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Seversky, You raise an interesting point on teaching the best science. I think plate tectonics might be a good analogy. It was proposed as early as 1912-1915, but not taught until the 1960's. Why? There was a proposal, but no confirmation. Until magnetic field directions were mapped in rock, seafloor spreading discovered, and the liquid mantle understood, there was a lack of evidence. It could have been wrong, or right, but there wasn't really even enough data to debate. Were the students before 1950 irrevocable harmed? Probably not. Their studies may have even primed them to understand the revolutionary nature of plate tectonics. A high-level geology major should have been aware of the controversy, but maybe not a sixth grader. Likewise, it seems a lot to teach ID based on ATP-synthase, orphan ORFs, against a prevailing theory. What would a fourth grade geology teacher do in 1930?REC_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
To the first, the answer is that students should be taught the best science currently available.
What science? If anything it should be in history class.
Whatever its shortcomings, evolution is currently the dominant theory in its field in the view of those best-qualified to judge.
"Evolution" isn't being debated. biological evolution- what is being debatedJoseph_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Anyway, courtesy of the Discovery Institute, I have a copy of David Berlinski’s The Deniable Darwin, for the best answer to the question: Why is human evolution, in its actual present state, compulsorily taught in schools? Why are people going to court in order to force the teaching?
I think that is actually two questions. To the first, the answer is that students should be taught the best science currently available. Whatever its shortcomings, evolution is currently the dominant theory in its field in the view of those best-qualified to judge. No, it is not complete or perfect but that is true of all our best theories and is not a reason not to teach them. To the second, my understanding was that the legal cases were about preventing a certain brand of evangelical Protestantism being taught as science in place of what scientists say is the best theory.Seversky_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

I have a simple question for the UD blog contributors. Anytime in the near future can we expect to see some progress on the positive evidence for intelligent design and not just Darwin-bashing? Tell me if this is out of place, but it would seem that a lot more could be done in the way of research, and most of that time....actually like roughly 95% of that time seems to be used in slinging mud at Darwinists.Leviathan_{January 16, 2010
January
01
Jan
16
16
2010
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply