Skimping on Evolution?

From the Style article about Sylvia Mader's new text book, we read:

Meanwhile, Eugenie Scott, executive director of the Oakland-based, nonprofit National Center for Science Education, faults VCU's biology faculty for adopting a book "that skimps on evolution." While much of the debate about science curricula has centered on elementary, middle and high schools, Scott expects colleges to become the new testing ground for how evolution is discussed.

Here is a web page where you can click to read the Table of Contents of Essentials in Biology. Click on slide "˜5' and "˜6'. Sure, the three-chapter section on evolution does look a little skimpy to me. But what is wrong with Scott's complaint?

Wander on over to the text's website and you will find that the book is described as "an essentials level introductory general biology text for non-majors students." (emphasis added)

This is a book intended for students who major in theater, English, political science, women's studies, etc. They take a course like this because most universities require a certain minimum of science classes to be taken (just as they require a certain minimum of math or social science classes). Thus, for a book like this, the author and publisher are tasked with taking the very large and complex subject of biology (which includes biochemistry, cell biology, molecular genetics, Mendelian genetics, botany, zoology, anatomy and physiology, evolution, and ecology) and boiling it down to something that can be communicated to a mass audience of young adults with low levels of interest in science over about 40-or-so lectures.

With this in mind, now return to the Table of Contents and look at the rest of the book. It "skimps" on EVERYTHING! A cell biologist would complain that it skimps on cell biology, a microbiologist would complain it skimps on microbiology, a zoologist would complain that it skimps on zoology. And so on. Heck, Mike Behe could complain the book is biased against him because it skimps on its description of the cilium, blood clotting, and the complement system!

Now, one might take issue with using a "skimpy" biology book for non-majors and the merits of such a decision are debatable. But let's make sure that no one gets the false impression that evolution has been singled out for "skimpy treatment." Those who think so may be engaged in confirmation bias.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 12th, 2006 at 11:08 pm and is filed under Evolution, School, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/skimping-on-evolution/trackback/

6 Responses to “Skimping on Evolution?”

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
July 12th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
We can contrast that with the heavy coverage of evolution in Ken Miller's 1077 page high school text book:

Miller and Levine

2 of its 49 chapters are on evolution.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2006 @ 11:27 pm

MikeGene Says:
July 12th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Ouch

Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2006 @ 11:43 pm

Mung Says:
July 13th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I found not a single mention in the book concerning the evolution of skimpiness!

Skimping on skimpiness, no less.

Comment by Mung — July 13, 2006 @ 9:56 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
July 14th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again) by Allen Orr

Second"”and this has more to do with attacks from scientists such as Behe's"”there's a striking asymmetry in molecular versus evolutionary education in American universities. Although many science, and all biology, students are required to endure molecular courses, evolution"”even introductory evolution"”is often an elective. The reason is simple: biochemistry and cell biology get Junior into med school, evolution doesn't. Consequently, many professional scientists know surprisingly little about evolution.

And Paul Nelson states it more recently Sarkar vs. Nelson

Evolutionary biologists themselves are to blame. They abuse their own theory, waving phrases such as selective advantage at the phenomena like magic wands, often in the complete absence of any genuine biological understanding about the puzzle at hand. As a result, evolutionary theory decays into a collection of untestable or mutually contradictory tales. College biology students endure just enough of these tales to satisfy the bare minimum of departmental requirements. Then they get the hell out of Darwin.

Q. Ever wonder why organizations such as the American Society of Naturalists regularly complain that molecular biology graduate students (for instance) don't know much, or any, evolutionary theory?
A. Students don't see the point of storytelling. They could take a Fiction Writing course for that.

As I thought on it more, if I had to hazard a guess, I think this is more than just the usual anti-Wedge politics. It is an attempt to by a sub-discipline in biology to stay par with its competitors.

I know at many schools where our IDEA chapters are, the bio majors come to me and say. "We really didn't learn much about evolution!"

Ken Miller's coverage of the topic says it all, IMHO. Evolutionary biology is being dwarfed by the explosion of other biological fields!

There has been a push to get evolution taught in Stanford's medical school, but this is would be one of the few classes in the entire nation! I didn't get the feeling it was welcomed with excitment.

So I think this last round was just part of a promotional effort, and a pretty ill-conceived effort at that.

Salvador

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 14, 2006 @ 6:36 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
July 14th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Here is a 2006 initiative from the Evoltuionary-Wedge document: Evolutionary Wedge Document, 2006

As this document has already made clear, elements of evolutionary biology are profoundly relevant to fields such as medicine, public health, law, agronomy, forestry, natural products chemistry, and environmental science. However, postbaccalaureate training in most of these fields often is devoid of coverage of even the simplest, most relevant evolutionary concepts, such as the nature and importance of genetic variation. Moreover, we have already noted that most students receive almost no education on evolution as undergraduates. We urge that professional schools and graduate programs in these fields incorporate relevant evolutionary material into their curricula.

And a rallying cry

Evolutionary biology must be at the heart of the nation's research agenda in biology, just as it is at the heart of the field of biology.
…

The exponential increase of research on many fronts has been accompanied by growth in the number of specialized societies, journals, and annual meetings, and by a tendency toward increased specialization in students' research and perspectives. Efforts to counter these trends, such as joint meetings of the Society for the Study of Evolution, the Society of Systematic Biologists, the American Society of Naturalists, and the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, and symposia organized by the Paleontological Society, have been enthusiastically received, indicating broad interest in mechanisms that can unite the field.

There are trends they view as counter to their goals, IMHO.

Training in underdeveloped subjects. In several important areas of evolutionary biology, the number of young scientists who will become the future corps of researchers is sorely inadequate. Perhaps the most conspicuous of these areas are (a) mathematical and statistical evolutionary biology, including modeling and data analysis;

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 14, 2006 @ 7:00 pm

Ilion Says:
July 16th, 2006 at 1:15 am
As this document has already made clear, elements of evolutionary biology are profoundly relevant to fields such as medicine, public health, law, agronomy, forestry, natural products chemistry, and environmental science. However, postbaccalaureate training in most of these fields often is devoid of coverage of even the simplest, most relevant evolutionary concepts, such as the nature and importance of genetic variation. Moreover, we have already noted that most students receive almost no education on evolution as undergraduates. We urge that professional schools and graduate programs in these fields incorporate relevant evolutionary material into their curricula.

LOL

Isn't it amusing when those who can't even see that they contradict themselves within two sentences demand to set policy — and based on the assertion they promptly contradict?

Comment by Ilion — July 16, 2006 @ 1:15 am

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Skimping on Evolution?

6 Responses to “Skimping on Evolution?”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books