"But those who believe in the literal accuracy of the Bible are
continuing to find ways to discourage the teaching of evolution,
as we've just witnessed in the recent decision by the Kansas State
Board of Education."
I, for one, do not believe in the literal accuracy of the Bible
nor do I think the teaching of evolution should be
discouraged. And I strongly disagree with the action taken
by the Kansas school board. Nevertheless, Alberts' opinion
piece is not without its many problems.
He writes:
"It's remarkable that the controversy over teaching evolution
continues to be so rancorous, given that the central issues have
been resolved in the courts and by much of the American public."
Where is the scientific evidence that the central issues have
been resolved, at least among "much of the American
public?" Surveys show that something like 45% accept some
form of biblical creationism and another 45% accept evolution,
but think that God was involved in it.
"Students are the ones who suffer from this situation. Evolution is the
single most important concept in biology."
I think evolution is indeed an important concept in biology, but whether
or not it is "the single most important concept" is really just an opinion.
Personally, I think it all depends on the discipline and the problems.
For example, I think that in molecular biology and physiology, the
form-function relationship is more important than evolution, and
in molecular biology and genetics, the concepts of genes and DNA
as the genetic material are more important than evolution (in what way
was evolution so centrally important in Bruce Alberts scientific research?)
On the other hand, if we want to inquire about origins or distribution
patterns, evolution is indeed very important in biology. Thus I think
Alberts is guilty of taking a context-dependent judgment and
turning into an absolute assertion for rhetorical/political reasons.
Alberts continues:
"As pointed out in a guidebook released last year by the National
Academy of Sciences, it has implications for medicine, agriculture,
and many other fields. Evolution explains, for example, why many
human pathogens have been developing resistance to formerly effective
drugs -- and it suggests ways of confronting this serious public health
problem. A detailed understanding of evolution will be essential as we
strive to establish sustainable relationships with the natural world.
And evolution is a scientific explanation of great power and scope.
Teaching biology without explaining evolution is like teaching U.S.
history without mentioning the Bill of Rights."
Ah, let me be sneaky here. Kansas students will indeed
learn about the very type of evolution Alberts mentions as these
are example of microevolution, and if I am correct, I am under
the impression that the standardized tests in Kansas will test
on microevolution. Is macroevolution really important to
medicine? I don't think so, thus I think Bruce is relying on
a little fear-mongering here. It would be more honorable to
argue that macroevolution should be taught because this is
what science has found instead of trying to justify its teaching
for pragmatic social reasons.
"Similarly, evolution is a theory supported by so much observational
and experimental evidence that the overall concept is no longer actively
questioned in science. Scientists continue to study the details of how
evolution occurs. But there is no debate within the scientific community
over whether evolution occurred."
I agree that there is no debate within the scientific community over
whether evolution occurred, but what exactly does this mean? I'll
skip over the fact that evolution can be defined in many ways (thus
it is not clear how Alberts is defining it), and raise the question
as to just how many scientists have serious doubts whether
evolution occurred. The lack of debate may mean nothing other
than you don't debate the reigning paradigm or publicly express
arguments that could be hijacked by creationists. Thus, it would
seem we need a *scientific* study to determine the incidence of
skepticism (not anecdotes and vague impressions). Why not use
an anonymous survey to determine the extent of skepticism about
abiogenesis, evolution, natural selection as the primary mechanism
behind evolution ,etc among scientists? If it turns out, for example, that
10% of scientists doubt "evolution occurred," that lack of debate
might be interesting to explore.
"Eliminating or "de-emphasizing" the teaching of evolution sets a
dangerous precedent. What other pieces of the curriculum will
religiously or politically based organizations become successful
at controlling?"
Precedent? Alberts is behind the times, as many would argue
from both sides of the fence that politically based organizations
significantly influence curricula. This is the problem any
attempt to impose monolithic standards must consider.
"Accepting evolution as an accurate description of the history of life on
Earth does not mean rejecting religion."
I agree, but I sense a "bait-n-switch" here. In the NAS's booklet on
science and creationism, it begins:
" Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science,
explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments
that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be
based on empirical evidence are not a part of science."
Now, this means that the "accurate" sense of evolution as a
description of the history of life is constrained by these scientific
criteria. If, for example, God was involved in origins or the history
of life, His actions would not be detected by science. Thus, the
"accurate" description of science would not be truly accurate. It
would be accurate only as a description that excludes causes beyond
observation. Thus, accepting evolution as an accurate scientific
description does not mean it is an accurate description as commonly
understood (where accurate is interpreted to mean true).
Mike