The Critic's Dilemma: Pretend and Defend or Engage
by bipodI'm glad that I'm not an ID critic. Or at least not the sort that works the mainstream media (fyi, it is worth taking note that some otherwise intelligent, respectable scientists have sold their souls to the MSM and now regularly make quite stupid statements for the sake of "the cause" that they should be embarrassed to make - not just on both sides of the ID debate but also regarding other science/culture issues).
ID critics who want to win the soundbyte war have this dilemma. Do they pretend that Neo-Darwinism is the THE theory, with satisfactory answers for all of life's (the biotic sort) biggest questions. Do they continue to parade their flawless theory around as the grandest of all man's discoveries? Do they continue to deny that there are any serious questions to be resolved (as opposed to trivial questions)? Questions whose answers may be fatal to the theory?
The problem with pretending for the sake of soundbytes is that you may succeed in fostering advocates for your cause, but what you fail at, is the more important task, of getting young students excited about evolutionary biology. If a theory has everything figured out, and is presented so, then what motivation does the young scientist have for delving into the discipline? When it comes to intellectual inquiry, the biggest motivational force (perhaps second to money) is a good challenge. But what if the challenges aren't presented to the students? What if the challenges are hidden, intentionally, for the sake of "the cause."
Wonder why students aren't engaged with evolutionary curricula? They need to be captivated by challenges. But the challenges are hidden by a "pretend and defend" stance rather than a choice of factual engagement.
July 31st, 2005 at 10:53 am
Hi Bipod,
Good points. Have you ever read William Provine's review of NAS' Teaching About Evolution and The Nature of Science? I think you'd find you're in agreement on a number of points.
Comment by Krauze — July 31, 2005 @ 10:53 am
August 1st, 2005 at 10:40 am
"Do they continue to deny that there are any serious questions to be resolved (as opposed to trivial questions)? Questions whose answers may be fatal to the theory?"
I'm curious as to what these questions are; could you tell us?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 1, 2005 @ 10:40 am
August 1st, 2005 at 10:52 am
Hi Aagcobb,
I have a couple that I think fits Bipod's description. But first, let me ask you one thing: Do you think that there are no serious questions left in evolutionary biology, and that all that's left is to clean up the details?
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 10:52 am
August 1st, 2005 at 11:15 am
Hi Krauze,
I am sure that there are serious questions left in evolutionary biology, but I guess it depends on what you mean by a "serious question" and a "detail". For example, I would consider the ancestral origin of birds, which was heatedly debated and appears to be resolving in favor of theropods, to be a serious question and not a mere detail. If you mean a "question whose answers may be fatal to the theory", I am not personally aware of any which would be fatal to common descent, or require the incorporation of an unidentifiable "intelligence", whatever that term means. If by that quote you mean that the Modern Synthesis would require significant revision to explain common descent, I wouldn't be surprised at all, since its always possible we'll learn new things which have to be explained; for example Darwin's theory had to be revised to incorporate genetics.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 1, 2005 @ 11:15 am
August 1st, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"For example, I would consider the ancestral origin of birds, which was heatedly debated and appears to be resolving in favor of theropods, to be a serious question and not a mere detail."
Whether birds evolved from theropods or some other group of reptiles is something that would fall in my personal "mere detail" bucket. It certainly isn't something that would've made me choose a career in biology.
Anyway, as you say, this particular problem is about to be wrapped up. Do you think there are any serious problems in evolutionary biology that are still far from being solved?
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 1:54 pm
I don't consider it part of evolutionary biology, but I think its far from resolved how abiogenesis occurred. Frankly, not being a scientist, I'm not exactly on the cutting edge of biological research. Can you tell me what the serious problems you mentioned are?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 1, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Right now, I'm reading Evolution in Four Dimensions (MIT Press, 2005) by Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb, in which they propose that organisms can react adaptively to changed conditions, and that some of these changes are heritable. They're openly calling their position Lamarckian, and raise the possibility that the Central Dogma (information runs from DNA to RNA to proteins, never the other way) may have to be modified or discarded (read some excerpts from Pigliucci's review in Nature here). If they're right, and this "epigenetic inheritance" (as they call it), I'd say the Modern Synthesis is in for some re-thinking, won't you say? Of course, Jablonka and Lamb aren't advocating ID, but their description of the state of evolutionary biology isn't one you're going to hear in pronouncements from the NCSE.
If you're interested in other books about what should be on evolutionary biology's "to do" list, check out Origination of Organismal Form (MIT Press, 2003), which is among our "Featured Books". In the introduction, editors Müller and Newman list four plates of "open questions" regarding evolutionary biology.
Some of my own questions I think it would be fun for a newly graduated biologist to struggle with:
How does a single cell turn into a fully mature organism?
How did the animal bodyplans arise?
Was there a common ancestor of all life, and if so, how did it look?
We should also remember that much of the interest in evo-devo and the Cambrian explosion is the result of our biased interest in our own type of organism, that is, animals. I suspect that as we start directing an equal amount of attention towards the development and evolution of plants, we'll be doubling our number of nagging questions.
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 3:42 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Thanks Krauze, just goes to show there's still lots to learn, and thats exciting!
Comment by Aagcobb — August 1, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Indeed. So why does the National Center for Science Education fail to inform students about these "exciting" ideas?
Comment by Krauze — August 1, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
August 1st, 2005 at 11:49 pm
What makes anyone think NCSE wouldn't mention Jablonka and Lamb? I think that's an unevidenced claim, and a bitter and false stereotype.
In what way does the NCSE fail to inform students of those "exciting concepts?" In Texas in 2003, it was NCSE who defended such things, and Discovery Institute which said it was all wrong and immoral to teach it.
Comment by edarrell — August 1, 2005 @ 11:49 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:10 am
Hi Ed,
"What makes anyone think NCSE wouldn't mention Jablonka and Lamb? I think that's an unevidenced claim, and a bitter and false stereotype."
Well, have they? I asked Aagcobb if he thought there were any serious unsolved problem in evolutionary biology, and apart from the phylogeny of birds, he didn't know of any, as he wasn't "on the cutting edge of biological research". Are you saying that all he had to do was surf over to the NCSE homepage, and there'd have been an article explaining it?
"In what way does the NCSE fail to inform students of those "exciting concepts?" In Texas in 2003, it was NCSE who defended such things, and Discovery Institute which said it was all wrong and immoral to teach it."
I don't follow the political battles over school curricula. Please enlighten me as to what exactly the nature of these "such things" was that NCSE was defending.
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2005 @ 12:10 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 9:36 am
"Indeed. So why does the National Center for Science Education fail to inform students about these "exciting" ideas?"
Probably because they are more appropriate for college level courses. I suspect that few American high school students even learn the basics of the Modern Synthesis, as is demonstrated daily by the statements I read coming from creationists (you know, "if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes?"); cutting edge biological research is going to sail right over their heads.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 9:36 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:34 am
It looks like we have a contradiction here: According to Aagcobb, the NCSE doesn't tell students about new and exciting ideas as this "is going to sail right over their heads", while Ed says that "it was NCSE who defended such things", and that saying otherwise is "a bitter and false stereotype."
Perhaps you guys should work out among yourselves what NCSE actually want students to learn, and whether this is appropriate.
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2005 @ 10:34 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:48 am
Sorry, Krauze, I was just relying on your say so as to what NCSE informs students of. Wouldn't you agree, though, that istudents need to learn what the Modern Synthesis is before they can begin to appreciate the significance of high level criticism which was published this year? What's the rush in getting Jablonka and Lamb into high schools; there's hardly been time for scientists in the field to read it yet.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 10:48 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"Sorry, Krauze, I was just relying on your say so as to what NCSE informs students of."
And yet you managed to reconstruct the NCSE's reasons for doing this; it's "going to sail right over their heads". This piece of information wasn't part of my "say so", so where did you get it from?
"Wouldn't you agree, though, that istudents need to learn what the Modern Synthesis is before they can begin to appreciate the significance of high level criticism which was published this year?"
As I don't have any experience teaching biology to high schoolers, I really don't have any basis from which to answer this question.
Look, my interest isn't with high school curricula, but with the dilemma posed by Bipod. Either you pretend like all that's left to do is to iron out the detail, making evolutionary biology seem as dull as a box of hair, or you acknowledge the unsolved questions, meaning you'll have to distance yourself from much of the overblown rhetoric.
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:40 pm
C'mon Krauze, you're reading Jablonka and Lamb now. Do you think that a high school student who doesn't even know what the Modern Synthesis is, much less studied it in any detail, would be able to comprehend what you are reading?
As far as the overblown rhetoric goes, obviously there is a lot we don't know yet; if you can provide me some examples of the overblown rhetoric, I can tell you whether I feel a need to distance myself from it.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
August 4th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Here is an interesting article on real controversies regarding biological development:
Pharyngula
Comment by Aagcobb — August 4, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I'm having some spare time, and I'll be trying to catch up with some long-neglected discussions.
"C'mon Krauze, you're reading Jablonka and Lamb now. Do you think that a high school student who doesn't even know what the Modern Synthesis is, much less studied it in any detail, would be able to comprehend what you are reading?"
What did I tell you earlier? I'm not interested in dictating the curriculum of high school science classes. Nor did Bipod display any such interest in his opening post. So why do you insist on dragging the topic into the discussion?
"As far as the overblown rhetoric goes, obviously there is a lot we don't know yet; if you can provide me some examples of the overblown rhetoric, I can tell you whether I feel a need to distance myself from it."
We can start with Daniel Dennett's claim of Darwinism as a "universal acid" (dis)solving all aspects of biology (not to mention the rest of reality), accusing Stephen Gould of using "skyhooks" because he claimed that there was more to evolution than natural selection.
"Here is an interesting article on real controversies regarding biological development:
Pharyngula"
"Real controversies" As opposed to what? The ones between Jablonka, Lamb, and their critics? Or are you once again trying to fit my views into your preconceived mental categories?
Comment by Krauze — August 12, 2005 @ 8:13 pm