Staying skeptical of evolution

[dougo]

One more post for today. The Boston Globe has an article about the fight against teaching evolution in public schools (link from gibsonfeed). One thing mentioned is a label placed on the title page of a biology textbook: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." I happen to agree strongly with these statements, but the point is that everything should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. It's sort of redundant to put it on a textbook when this implicitly applies to all textbooks. Somehow I don't think putting the same label on bibles would be accepted by anyone, though.

Really, I'd be happy if human evolution were taken out of schools, as long as it's replaced by a greater emphasis on critical thinking, logic, and the scientific method. Teach a man to fish, etc. Of course schools should also continue to teach genetic reproduction and natural selection, since those theories are straightforward to test with experiments. Actually, natural selection isn't even a theory, it logically follows from genetic reproduction.

The article also quotes the 100-year-old Ernest Mayr: "What it really amounts to is a break with our Constitution, which tells you that you should keep religion out of public life." If only the Constitution actually said that!

Comments

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Taken out of all schools, or only all public schools? I'd much rather see progressive school vouchers and let the parents decide. As for the public schools, there should probably be courses both in evolution and secular creationism, and students/parents could pick which one they want.

I just get very nervous when the government tries to make up people's minds.

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

I just get very nervous when the government tries to make up people's minds.

So do I. But I get equally nervous when parents try to make up their children's mind.

I think education is a good thing, and that everyone should have a right to an education, even those who are unlucky enough to be born to parents who think that education is bad and should be replaced by religious indoctrination.

The fact that some parents, for religious reasons, don't want their children to be taught to read and write, or want their children taught that the earth is flat, or that Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation and the Theory of Evolution aren't universally accepted, doesn't mean the schools should be teaching any of this nonsense. Self-serving claims that these beliefs are not religiously based, and attempts to claim that they are equally valid scientific theories when they are actually religious instruction with "The bible says" crossed out, and "We scientifically believe" written on top in crayon, should be ignored.

Saying "The government shouldn't interfere" is just another way of saying "Parents should have all rights; children should have no rights".

[dougo.livejournal.com]

My point was that I want children to be taught the difference between facts and theories, and in particular the difference between accepting and refuting a theory. I don't mind saying that the theory of evolution is not universally accepted, as long as it's clear that all the alternatives (so far) are either refuted or unfalsifiable.

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what you mean by "facts" as opposed to "theories". Can you give an example of a "fact" outside of mathematics and logic?

Sure evolution is a theory. So is universal gravitation, and the Round Earth Theory. Claiming an artificial distinction between these theories, indicating that there is more serious doubt about one than about the others, is a disservice to honest education.

Of course, teaching about the scientific method, and about why only falsifiable theories are useful, is a tremendously important thing to teach. But teaching this only in the biology class, and only when teaching evolution, is done with the clear purpose of casting inappropriate doubt on evolution. This is done for religious reasons, and has no place in public schools.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Well, OK, the only fact I know is "I think". Maybe I meant "theories for which supporting evidence is obvious and abundant," like the "fact" that the Red Sox won the World Series or that Abraham Lincoln died in 1865. But other than that admittedly fuzzy distinction, I wasn't saying that the theory of evolution should be singled out as less substantial than others, I was just willing to trade it for giving students better tools to figure out for themselves why the theory of evolution is likely and useful.

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

I think my point is that the theory of evolution is a "theory for which the evidence is obvious and abundant", and the arguments that this evidence could have been planted to fool us by an all-powerful God apply just as strongly to the fact that Abraham Lincoln died in 1865, or even that the Red Sox won the series. The world could have been created last week, complete with all the evidence of a past in which the 2004 world series happened.

I don't think the kind of tradeoff you mention is really available. The people who want evolution not to be taught also want less, not more, encouragement of independent thought by students.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wasn't really expecting any creationists to call my bluff on that tradeoff.

I understand your point, but it still feels to me like there is some fundamental (no pun intended) difference between events that are part of the historical record (such as it is) and an explanation of how things work that can't be directly inspected (like opening up a watch). But I'm having trouble characterizing the distinction. Maybe after I retire I'll take some philosophy courses.

[wrog]

Taking evolution out of schools makes about as much sense as taking gravity out of schools. I mean if one really doesn't want one's kids to be taught modern science then fine, but, realize that's what we're talking about here.

Evolution, in the sense of, "did it happen?", isn't some random hypothesis that's currently hotly debated; the fossil record is so voluminous, that it's completely absurd to assert that this is anything other than a fact as well established as anything else in science. In fact, this much was mostly settled even before Darwin.

Moreover the evolutionary classification of living things forms the core of modern biology. Without evolution, biology just becomes this random taxonomy with no rhyme or reason to it and you don't have a prayer at understanding what's going on.

What Darwin did was come up with a mechanism, Natural Selection, and while there are debates about whether it accounts for everything (answer: it probably doesn't), that's a completely different question, one that creationists (often purposely) confuse with a debate about evolution itself.

[wrog]

I want children to be taught the difference between facts and theories

and you need to be taught the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory is a model, a mechanism for explaining an existing body of experimental results; the really good ones can make predictions but that's not actually necessary. Theories are not right or wrong; they just have domains in which it's appropriate or inappropriate to apply them, and degrees of how close they match the said experimental data. Newtonian gravity is a perfectly good theory for calculating the period of the moon's orbit, and a completely sucky theory for calculating stuff about black holes or the structure of the universe. General Relativity is fine for the latter, but doesn't tell you shit about the structure of the atom. And so it goes....

I mean, yes, the dictionary will tell you that one of the meanings of "theory" is as a synonym for "hypothesis", but that's explicitly not the sense being used in "Theory of Evolution".

[dougo.livejournal.com]

(Well, in my semantics class we learned the difference between a theory and a model, but that's another set of definitions altogether...)

I would say Newtonian theory is wrong, because experimental data repeatably contradicts it. You're right, wrong theories can still be useful as approximations, but that doesn't mean they're not still wrong. As far as I know, Darwinian evolution hasn't yet been contradicted, unlike (say) Lamarckian adaptation. That doesn't make it right, it's just not known to be wrong. My point (well, one of my points) is that we should be teaching that "not known to be wrong" is the strongest thing we can say, and that it's not the same as "in doubt".

[wrog]

by this yardstick all theories are wrong, since

1. experimental evidence never exactly correlates with what the theory predicts, we simply don't have explanations for every deviance and never will, and
2. unless one is arrogant enough to believe a particular theory is the last word on a given subject (an attitude which is generally considered not very scientific), it's pretty much inevitable that we'll eventually encounter a domain (and a corresponding body of experimental evidence) where it doesn't apply. (GR is almost certainly in trouble the first chance we get to study black holes up close and personal.)

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Well, the theory "the Red Sox won the World Series" is probably not wrong. (To use an example from another thread in this discussion.) If that doesn't count as a theory by your definition, then I'd like to see a statement of the definition.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Are you really advocating democratic parenting? What if I have a better clue of what my child needs more than a special-interest group does? Instead of buying my child books I'd be buying her lobbyists.

If you follow your argument's logic, you are basically saying that parents shouldn't have the right to homeschool, nor should anyone have the right to take their kids to a private school. It's a perfectly consistent theory to have. It basically says you only trust teacher's unions and public school administrators. I just can't imagine being the cynical.

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

You're completely putting words in my mouth here. If you reread my post, I think it should be clear that I'm not advocating a system where parents have no rights. I'm merely saying that there should be a balance between the parents' right to educate as they see fit, and the child's right to a good education. In most, if not all, states, parents have a right to homeschool, but not to provide as little or as much education as they desire and to call that homeschooling. If you believe that women have no need of literacy, and have a homeschooling plan that doesn't involve teaching your daughters to read and write, this won't be viewed as an acceptable homeschooling plan, and you'll have to change it or send your kids to a conventional school. I think this is a good thing.

There are religions that believe that the earth is flat, and 6000 years old, and that species (homo sapiens in particular) did not arise via evolution via natural selection. But I think that a real education, as opposed to a religious indoctrination being offerred in place of an education, teaches that these things are wrong, and I think that children have a right to a real education.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

I think publicly funded education is a good idea, but I can't seem to find reasons as easily for making one particular ciriculum compulsory. If a dozen or so people want to believe the earth is flat, what's the harm? We could use more diversity of thought, not less.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

If no curricula are compulsory, then what's the point of publicly funded education? I could just set up a school that teaches exactly nothing, and get free money from the government.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Obviously money should be given on a per-student basis, not a flat rate. Why would parents send thier kids to the crappiest school when they can pick the best? You really need to consider effects like competition.

There could be some very, very broadstroke guidelines. The three Rs, for example. You could create incentives to make sure the system isn't abused.

To me, the purpose of public funding of education is to have better educated people in the country. This is essential both for a secure, stable democracy, and for a strong economy. If some groups wanted to opt out of the education system, that'd be fine by me; ultimately they'd just be hurting themselves, but it's not my place to make that decision for them.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

So what's "secular creationism"?

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

It's basically what it sounds like. A theory of the origins of life based on creation. Think David Hume.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Is it falsifiable?

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Well, it varies based on who it's from. It's not a single movement. It's just a term to describe an alternative to teaching evolution.

Mind you, I believe in evolution, but I don't believe I should force my will upon others, nor should the government, except in the "well, duh" cases like protecting people's rights to life, liberty, and property.

[luckylefty.livejournal.com]

Teach a man to fish, etc.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.

But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.