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

[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.