Between education and indoctrination.

What Is Teaching Evolution All About?
Sarah Chaffee 

In Education Week, Adam Laats and Harvey Siegel offer a seemingly humane and generous compromise on teaching evolution in public schools. "Teaching Evolution Isn't About Changing Beliefs," says the headline.

Authors of a new book from the University of Chicago Press, Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation, they argue that students should learn about evolution, but not be indoctrinated in it. Students, they say, simply need to understand the theory, but teachers should not force them to believe it.

While I agree with part of their approach, their propositions are obvious -- almost too much so. They write:

By teaching comprehensive science curricula that includes evolution and teaching students to confront subjects they may not agree with, schools are not trying to change beliefs. Understanding is enough.

On one level, this makes a lot of sense. Students do need to understand evolution. It is important that teachers educate them on the evidence for neo-Darwinism.

This approach is also a big improvement on recent National Science Foundation-supported research aimed at investigating ways to get students to accept -- not just understand -- evolution.

However, Laats and Siegel leave out some crucial information. For one thing, they seem to believe that only parents who think "the world is only 6,000 years old" would have a problem with teaching evolution as unquestionable dogma. Not so.

Many parents and educators who value critical thinking and, frankly, honesty in education advocate that students be exposed to the fascinating ambiguities of current knowledge about biological origins.

The authors, however, simply ignore that there is a major scientific debate over evolution. They say:

Evolutionary theory is a building block of our understanding of life. As the best existing scientific explanation of the way our species came to be, how evolution works is vital for all students to understand. Students should not have the right to opt out of learning about a central tenet of contemporary science. But if students have religious objections to the theory's implications, the public school has no right to insist that they believe it -- that is, to regard evolutionary theory as true.

Much of this is very close to correct, as far as it goes. They neglect to mention, though, that some scientists are currently questioning whether Darwinian evolution is "the best" explanation -- and therefore if it is indeed foundational to our "understanding of life."

Researchers are asking whether natural selection acting on random mutations is able to account for the complexity of life. If Darwinian theory with its proposed mechanism of change is in need of a major reevaluation, as substantial mainstream scientific opinion now concedes, that should not be concealed from young people. Not if education is about seeking the truth.

The real issue isn't "creationism" or religion versus evolution. I should add too, for the umpteenth time, it's not about intelligent design either. (See our Science Education Policy.) It's about whether students will be introduced to a fair picture of mainstream research on a vital subject of scientific inquiry.

This brings us to the second part of Laats and Siegel's argument: Teachers should require students simply to understand -- not accept -- evolution. Again, this is true. A teacher should not try to make a student internalize any theory of evolution. They can simply require that the student learn the proposition -- which should mean analyzing it intelligently not just spitting it back on command -- if they want to achieve a certain grade. But students may not be gaining an accurate understanding of evolution if they learn only the scientific strengths, and not the weaknesses, of the theory.

Laats and Siegel try to outline what teaching evolution is not about. But they do not address what it is about. The goal of scientific instruction, ultimately, is not to confirm or upend any religious teaching.


It is partly about how information is presented. But it is mostly about the information itself -- interacting with it, and drawing conclusions based on critical reasoning and examining the evidence.

Darwin is outnumbered and outgunned?

Vindicated by Behe: Devolution Is Natural, Evolution Is Not.

 Granville Sewell

 

 

I know many other mathematicians and engineers who share my low opinion of Darwinism, but most are reluctant to express their views publicly because they feel that the issue is simply outside their area of expertise and they will not be taken seriously. I also tend to defer to specialists on scientific issues outside my discipline — until those specialists try to tell me something clearly absurd, for example, that unintelligent forces alone could have reorganized the basic particles on Earth into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. Then I don’t hesitate to jump into the debate. I have done so, for example, in a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer opinion piece, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” and in a 2017 Physics Essays article, “On ‘Compensating’ Entropy Decreases.”

A Very Simple Principle

It is really not necessary to be a biochemist or a paleontologist to understand the main issue in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design. That is because it is a very simple principle, as I keep emphasizing: natural (unintelligent) causes do not create order (or information). They destroy it. That is the main theme of the first half of my video “Why Evolution Is Different.”

While every other natural process tends to turn order into disorder, Darwinists have always believed that natural selection is the one unintelligent process in the universe that can create spectacular order out of disorder. So I feel vindicated by Michael Behe’s new book, Darwin Devolves, which disputes this belief, and argues that despite all the claims about the creative powers of natural selection, it has never actually been observed to produce anything new and complex, only “devolution”:

 Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting….Darwin’s mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain.

Only Devolution Occurred

As another illustration that selection and mutations can only degrade, in this interview on German TV, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig recounts (minutes 24:00 to 28:00, turn on English subtitles if you don’t speak German) the well-funded attempts at, among other places, his own Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, to speed up evolution in plants using radiation and advanced artificial selection techniques. Lönnig reports that only devolution occurred: the only progress observed before this effort was given up was that the genes that made some plants toxic were damaged, making these plants more useful as animal fodder.

That it seems even superficially plausible that random mutations could produce major improvements relies completely on the observed but inexplicable fact that while they are awaiting rare favorable mutations, living species are able to preserve their complex structures and pass them on to their descendants without significant degradation, generation after generation.

To appreciate how astonishing this is, imagine that it were possible (though it is far beyond our current technology) to construct a fleet of cars that contained completely automated car-building factories inside, with the ability to construct new cars — and not just normal new cars, but new cars containing automated car-building factories inside them. If we left these cars alone and let them reproduce themselves for many generations, is there any chance we would eventually see major advances arise through natural selection of the resulting duplication errors?

Of course not. We could confidently predict that the whole process would grind to a halt after a few generations without intelligent humans there to fix the mechanical problems that would inevitably arise. And we don’t need to know the details of how these cars work and reproduce to predict this, because there is a simpler principle involved here: devolution is natural, evolution is not.

The Argument Could Not Be Clearer

I am very grateful that there are biologists like Michael Behe and W.E. Lönnig who doubt Darwinism, because doubts expressed by mathematicians like me would otherwise never be taken seriously. But you really do not have to study the biochemical details to understand why the accumulation of genetic accidents cannot produce human brains and human consciousness. And you do not really need to study mutations for thirty years, as Lönnig has done, to predict that bombarding plant chromosomes with radiation would not lead to major agricultural advances.

The argument against Darwinism, or any other attempt to explain what has happened on Earth without intelligent design, could not be simpler or clearer: a few fundamental, unintelligent, forces of physics alone cannot rearrange the fundamental particles of physics into computers and airplanes and Apple iPhones. And any attempt to explain how they can must break down somewhere, because they obviously can’t