In the leading Finnish newspaper, there was recently an interesting perspective article about teaching of evolutionary theory at schools, written by a pedagogics professor at the University of Jyväskylä:
Tapio Puolimatka: Evoluutioteoriaa on opetettava kriittisesti avoimella tavalla. HS 15.11.2008 (In Finnish: Evolutionary theory must be taught in a critical and transparent way).
This article brought an example to illustrate the prevailing atmosphere: a member of the Royal Society was forced to leave his position because of having said that the theory of evolution should be taught in a discussive manner rather than as a solid fact. In the words of a philoshist Thomas Nagel this is representative of the way in which evolutionary theory has shifted from being a critically viewed scientific theory to an ‘ism’ – alternative to creationism. He also criticized the way in which some advocates of the evolutionary theory think they represent critical, unbiased thinking, but at the same time deny that there would be any problems and unsolved issues in the evolutionary theory. This made me wonder how much similar attitudes might affect evolutionary biology research today. Here is a couple of examples that I find at least to some extent contradictory to the tradition of critical scientific thinking:
1) Evolution is often considered as a null-hypothesis. If alternative explanations to observed changes cannot be found, evolution is considered the most likely explanation (see also this blog post).
2) In the presence of heritability and selection evolution is often considered as a ‘must’.
3) Despite of uncertainties, conclusion on evolution is often justified with the ‘precautionary principle’.
These omit the possibility of unknowns (1), and the facts that heritability is not a constant and that there are typically multiple selective forces acting on several correlated traits simultaneously, so that the evolvability of an organism can be heavily constrained and the direction to which it eventually might evolve is far from obvious (2). And last but not least, one elementary point is forgotten (3): precautionary principle is for management but not for scientific decision making.
8 Comments
Perhaps it should be mentioned that the member of the Royal Society in question was forced to leave his position because he said that the theory of evolution should be taught in a discussive manners so that the views of students who believe in intelligent design are taken into account. This was considered too big a concession to proponents of ID.
As to the article you refer to, I have to say I was not too impressed by prof. Puolimatka’s guest editorial in the largest newspaper in Finland. It was actually quite frustrating to read the article, even more so knowing that people might actually be buying what he is saying.
To those, who have not read the HS guest editorial, and those who do not understand Finnish, the article in short criticises teaching of evolution without alternatives. Puolimatka (apparently) effectively uses science philosopher Thomas Nagel’s criticism on evolutionary theory to manifest his own agenda, which (at least to me) seems to be getting teaching of intelligent design into the school curriculum. This is justified by arguing that scientists who oppose religious fundamentalism by shutting all variants of creationism outside scientific discussion commit themselves to another kind of religiousness. The conclusion of the article baffles me the most, actually, as a scientist I take it as a personal insult – Puolimatka concludes that the only way to neutrally teach biological facts is to admit that empirical evidence can be interpreted in different ways that can lead to different conclusions based on the religious assumptions based on which it is interpreted.
My problem with the article is not that it encourages treating evolutionary theory with criticism; all science should be done with a critical and open mind, as you say in your blog post. My main problem is that the author treats ID as a scientific theory and levels evolutionary theory with it.
…and a little googling proved the hunch I had about Puolimatka’s agenda right. He is a fundamental creationist, with a view that all scientific discussion should be based on the realization that Christian god is behind our intelligence.
It is sickening and at the same time shameful that people like this hold professorships in our universities. (I actually went on to listen to Puolimatka’s 30min interview in the net to come to this conclusion), and that their views are spread without criticism by the leading newspaper in the country.
TL wrote:
“Perhaps it should be mentioned that the member of the Royal Society in question was forced to leave his position because he said that the theory of evolution should be taught in a discussive manners so that the views of students who believe in intelligent design are taken into account.”
That’s not true. Reiss was NOT saying that evolution “should” be taught in a “discussive manners”, but he was saying like that it is not wise strategy to teach that those who doesn’t believe in evolution are stupid, or something. If you want to get someone to believe in evolution, it should be done by more kind way.
The Royal society said in its statement:
“Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s director of education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education…
Professor was misunderstood badly. And Royal Academy noticed that, but they didn’t want to correct the situation. Over 90% of members of Royal Academy are yet atheists. They didn’t want to correct the misinterpretations, but many of them wanted to recontinue mispresentation. After that, professor Reiss was forced to step down.
It still never ceases to amaze me that the creationists and the more modern ID brigade still argue that evolution is not real.
Where is the proof that the world was ‘created’…….and in 6 days at that?
What about all the claims that god is never wrong………if so how come (tongue in cheek here) he screwed up so many times (so many weird and extinct species)?
Or how about gender? Is your god, regarded as a ‘him’, actually celibate or is there a Mrs God? If so where is she?
Are there any kids?
Where is mum (and the kids)? School run perhaps?
So all you creationists and ID freaks out there need to prove your theological theory by producing some hard,robust, incontrovertible evidence to support your wacky claims.
Evolutionary theory has proved its worth and when new puzzles emerge they are investigated and allocated a place. Sure evolutionary theory is not perfect but at least its not pie in the sky.
Thanks TL for the good comments. This sentence of your hits exactly the point I tried to make: “My main problem is that the author treats ID as a scientific theory and levels evolutionary theory with it.” I think the danger of this, i.e. evolutionary theory being viewed as a ‘belief’ (or comparable to beliefs such as ID), substantially increases if loose conclusions of evolution are made in such cases, where evolution is expected but empirical evidence does not quite provide sufficient support for this conclusion.
a wrote:
“That’s not true. Reiss was NOT saying that evolution “should” be taught in a “discussive manners”….”
My mistake, for not checking the original statement, and actually thinking that the facts would be right in the HS guest editorial. What I said about Reiss’ resignation, was a direct translation from the Finnish version of HS.
It surprises me that the Intelligent Design crew in Finland is becoming so vocal. For many years it seemed to me that the whole evolution vs religion debate was something that never really held anyone’s attention here.
Recently I stumbled on an opinion piece in Finland’s teacher’s union magazine: Opettaja-Lehti, which encouraged presenting alternatives to evolutionary theory to children in school. The piece was written by Jan Nummensalo, a chemist from Seinäjoki, as a reaction to the two recent school shootings. The idea was that if children are taught evolutionary theory these type of shootings are inevitable, because students see no ‘purpose’ to life, and see the world as a meaningless void.
The movement to include religion in schooling appears to be having some victories, as I was surprised recently that the national curriculum for Finnish daycares now must include some religious teaching. My understanding is that religion had been removed from the curriculum ( I don’t know when) and then brought back this fall. I find that this type of instruction crosses the line and becomes indoctrination. From the church’s perspective this is probably the best venue and audience they could hope for. What could be better than to indoctrinate little kids that have little capacity for critical thought, and soak up everything that is taught to them as ‘the truth’? Not only does the church get to reach thousands of impressionable minds, the state is supporting it. Cringe…
Related to the previous comment by JL, one should always remember that most Christian churches (e.g. Catholic, Orthodoxian, and Anglican church) do not have any throuble in accepting evolutionary theory. Those supporting ID are predominantly small fundamentalistic communities (mostly in North America), who try to interprete the bible literally. So, the debate is not between science and religion in general.