Human Ape had a very angry response to my recent post on creationism in Ohio. Apparently I’m a “god-soaked uneducated moron who denies the established truth of evolution because it threatens the magic fairy who hides in the clouds.” Hahahaha! That was precious. I have no clue who this guy is, but he cracks me up. It’s a shame that his talent for personal attacks doesn’t help him with simple research. He could have read my short bio before commenting. I won’t assess my own intelligence (I have been called a moron before!), but I’m pretty sure that having a Ph.D from Stanford disqualifies me from the uneducated.
In the midst of his semi-coherent screed, Human Ape somehow managed to raise an interesting point:
“Where did you get the idea that evolution takes up only 3 weeks of a biology class? Any competent biology teacher would make evolution a major part of every single lesson every single day of the class. It’s impossible to properly teach biology any other way.”
Now there’s no doubt that evolution is the central theory in modern biology, and one of the most central in all of science. But including it in every lesson would be more confusing than illuminating. Anatomy, biochemistry and microbiology can and should be taught without referencing evolution. There’s really no reason to explain the circulatory system from natural selection. Given that its basic mechanisms were discovered centuries before Darwin was even born, it is demonstrably false that we need evolution. I bet that most high-school biology can be discussed without it. In my case, Darwinism was no more than about 3 weeks out of the entire year.
None of this undermines the idea that we should teach evolution at some point. That’s a fair argument, and one I may agree with. But it’s spectacularly wrong to insist that including it in every class is the only way to teach biology. Good pedagogy often requires obscuring underlying theories and principles. No one I know teaches Maxwell’s Equations from particle physics. I’ve personally had to teach Maxwell’s Equations several times, and can confidently say that doing so would be a VERY bad idea.
We really shouldn’t even discuss all this without first clarifying the purpose of science education. You can say, for example, that science education must primarily impart practical knowledge.* In this case we may eliminate evolution and biochemistry entirely, and instead focus on topics like health and nutrition. But the various justifications for science education is a topic for a different post!
*See Benjamin Shen, Science literacy and the public understanding of science, Communication of Sciencetific Information, Karger, Basel 1975, pp. 44 – 52.