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?

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;

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

Skimping on skimpiness, no less.

Miller and Levine

2 of its 49 chapters are on evolution.