[tt] NYT: Olivia Jusdon: Optimism in Evolution

[Premise Checker]

NYT: Olivia Jusdon: Optimism in Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13judson.html
[Letters attached.]

Guest Columnist
LONDON

When the dog days of summer come to an end, one thing we can be sure
of is that the school year that follows will see more fights over
the teaching of evolution and whether intelligent design, or even
Biblical accounts of creation, have a place in America's science
classrooms.

In these arguments, evolution is treated as an abstract subject that
deals with the age of the earth or how fish first flopped onto land.
It's discussed as though it were an optional, quaint and largely
irrelevant part of biology. And a common consequence of the
arguments is that evolution gets dropped from the curriculum
entirely.

This is a travesty.

It is also dangerous.

Evolution should be taught -- indeed, it should be central to
beginning biology classes -- for at least three reasons.

First, it provides a powerful framework for investigating the world
we live in. Without evolution, biology is merely a collection of
disconnected facts, a set of descriptions. The astonishing variety
of nature, from the tree shrew that guzzles vast quantities of
alcohol every night to the lichens that grow in the Antarctic
wastes, cannot be probed and understood. Add evolution -- and it
becomes possible to make inferences and predictions and (sometimes)
to do experiments to test those predictions. All of a sudden
patterns emerge everywhere, and apparently trivial details become
interesting.

The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is
immediately relevant here and now. The impact we are having on the
planet is causing other organisms to evolve -- and fast. And I'm not
talking just about the obvious examples: widespread resistance to
pesticides among insects; the evolution of drug resistance in the
agents of disease, from malaria to tuberculosis; the possibility
that, say, the virus that causes bird flu will evolve into a form
that spreads easily from person to person. The impact we are having
is much broader.

For instance, we are causing animals to evolve just by hunting them.
The North Atlantic cod fishery has caused the evolution of cod that
mature smaller and younger than they did 40 years ago. Fishing for
grayling in Norwegian lakes has caused a similar pattern in these
fish. Human trophy hunting for bighorn rams has caused the
population to evolve into one of smaller-horn rams. (All of which,
incidentally, is in line with evolutionary predictions.)

Conversely, hunting animals to extinction may cause evolution in
their former prey species. Experiments on guppies have shown that,
without predators, these fish evolve more brightly colored scales,
mature later, bunch together in shoals less and lose their ability
to suddenly swim away from something. Such changes can happen in
fewer than five generations. If you then reintroduce some predators,
the population typically goes extinct.

Thus, a failure to consider the evolution of other species may
result in a failure of our efforts to preserve them. And, perhaps,
to preserve ourselves from diseases, pests and food shortages. In
short, evolution is far from being a remote and abstract subject. A
failure to teach it may leave us unprepared for the challenges
ahead.

The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It
concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence. In his
book, "The Republican War on Science," the journalist Chris Mooney
argues persuasively that a contempt for scientific evidence -- or
indeed, evidence of any kind -- has permeated the Bush
administration's policies, from climate change to sex education,
from drilling for oil to the war in Iraq. A dismissal of evolution
is an integral part of this general attitude.

Moreover, since the science classroom is where a contempt for
evidence is often first encountered, it is also arguably where it
first begins to be cultivated. A society where ideology is a
substitute for evidence can go badly awry. (This is not to suggest
that science is never distorted by the ideological left; it
sometimes is, and the results are no better.)

But for me, the most important thing about studying evolution is
something less tangible. It's that the endeavor contains a profound
optimism. It means that when we encounter something in nature that
is complicated or mysterious, such as the flagellum of a bacteria or
the light made by a firefly, we don't have to shrug our shoulders in
bewilderment.

Instead, we can ask how it got to be that way. And if at first it
seems so complicated that the evolutionary steps are hard to work
out, we have an invitation to imagine, to play, to experiment and
explore. To my mind, this only enhances the wonder.

Olivia Judson, a contributing columnist for The Times, writes The
Wild Side at nytimes.com/opinion.

Letters - The Fake Debate About Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/opinion/l16judson.html

Re "Optimism in Evolution," by Olivia Judson (column, Aug. 13):

Ms. Judson articulates many strong arguments why evolution should be
taught in America's classrooms. I'd like to add one more.

The philosopher Daniel Dennett called evolution the single best idea
that anyone has ever had. School should be a sanctuary of ideas. We
must teach our children to recognize, respect and venerate brilliant
ideas articulated by great thinkers. There is no better place to
start than with Darwin.

The theory of evolution, if taught properly, will stimulate some of
our own students to take a crack at formulating the next single best
idea that anyone has ever had. Most if not all will fail in this
endeavor, but their lives and ours will be enriched beyond measure.
Paul Fiedler
New Haven, Aug. 14, 2008


What is especially sad about the teaching of evolution is that it
has been taught for a long time, and so the relatively recent
activity that pushes back against evolution is not a result of
biologists' failing to come to a point of view on new knowledge but
of crackpots interfering with the education of our young.

I attended a Catholic high school in Passaic, N.J., from 1965 to
1969, and despite the school's overall conservative tone (we were
taught by nuns, and wore uniforms or suits), our biology texts
accepted evolution and provided case studies that demonstrated how
quickly it can operate in some populations. (We discussed the color
change on moths in Britain.)

The media share the blame for giving voice to the anti-evolution
crowd without putting them into proper perspective.
Terence McKenna
Dover, N.J., Aug. 13, 2008


Finally, a voice of reason. One has been long asking, "Diogenes,
where are you?," and Olivia Judson provides the answer. And more
than just the answer; instead of just giving us a few reasons
evolution should be taught in our public schools, she elaborates on
them and provides convincing arguments why the teaching of
evolution, as opposed to creationism, is an absolute must.

Science, with all its flaws, is needed. The alternative is
Talibanesque dogma, drilled into people's heads, making them
ignorant, spiteful, hateful and sparking a return to the Dark Ages.

Dare we retreat to the days of the Scopes "monkey trial"? I say no.
Ms. Judson provides a convincing case for advancing through the
teaching of evolution.
Eric Neil Koenig
Kalamazoo, Mich., Aug. 13, 2008


I don't understand why evolution has to be an "either-or"
discussion. When I look at all that exists in nature, including the
complex functioning of a healthy human being, I think this is, in
fact, a most intelligent design!

I believe in evolution; and as a spiritual person I believe that it
is part of a super "intelligent design" by some force that exists
well beyond our grasp. Why do some want to force people to choose
sides in what is really a search for answers?

Study religion and science for what each has to offer in our very
human quest for both knowledge and spirituality. It's the motives of
those forcing a "showdown" and trying to exclude the study of
evolution that should be carefully examined.
Olivia Koppell
New York, Aug. 13, 2008


While the three reasons Olivia Judson specifies for teaching
evolution are very valid reasons, I believe that the most important
reason to teach evolution is that it illustrates how and proves that
all living things are related.

Thus, because of this knowledge, those of us who are able might then
assume the responsibility to care for all living things and the
earth that is our home.
Aurora Lehmann
Chatsworth, Calif., Aug. 13, 2008


I couldn't agree more with Olivia Judson's fine hurrah to the
teaching of evolution. Some things should not be under discussion;
some things are known and settled science. And those with a mature
understanding of theology should not be threatened by science.

The news media feed this lunacy by suggesting in the standard format
of their chat shows that all ideas are equal. Should they offer a
guest who says the sky is blue, they will surely invite a lawyer
from the Green Sky Association to argue the opposing view. The
president did not help matters when he said, on the very issue of
teaching evolution in the schools, "Both sides ought to be properly
taught."

There is no developed country in the world where the inclusion of
known science in the public school curriculum would be
controversial. It is no mistake that many of the very same people
who press public schools to teach pseudo-science, such as
intelligent design, also advocate for home schooling. Roiling the
agenda with this loopy debate is their way of attacking public
education itself, the elimination of which is their ultimate goal.
Tom Predhome
Brooklyn, Aug. 13, 2008