Misunderstanding Evolution
Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg have written an article called "Why Do Some People Resist Science?" that examines, among other things, how the intuitive thinking of children can be a roadblock to their understanding of how nature actually works.
Their theory is interesting and almost surely correct.
I've excerpted the paragraph below for my own separate purpose, not because it summarizes Bloom and Weisberg's theory:
Consider, for example, that most adults who claim to believe that natural selection can explain the evolution of species are confused about what natural selection actually is—when pressed, they often describe it as a Lamarckian process in which animals somehow give birth to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Their belief in natural selection, then, is not rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments. Rather, this scientifically credulous sub-population are deferring to the people who say that this is how evolution works. They trust the scientists.
The popular confusion of Lamarck's theory of evolution with Darwin's theory of evolution (and later theories) is one of my main pet peeves. I am truly amazed at how often well-educated people don't know the difference.
In my first year of college, one of my honors-program classmates derided me for completely rejecting Darwin's theory. Of course, I wasn't doing that. I was only telling my classmate that he was incorrect when he said that evolution took place as a result of the inheritance of acquired traits . He thought that this was the basis of Darwin's theory.
To be fair, Darwin's theory isn't perfect, but my classmate was clearly talking about Lamarckism, calling it Darwinism, and believing that it was established fact. For example, he was claiming that if you bound a person's ears beginning in childhood, then that person's children would somehow inherit small ears. I have since learned how common such mistakes are.
This is my explanation for how the confusion happens:
In high-school biology classes many out-dated evolutionary theories are explained along with the most up-to-date theories. This is as it should be since the students need to learn about the history of science.
Lamarck's theory is often illustrated by the "giraffe story" which claims that some ancient proto-giraffes stretched their necks to reach the higher leaves and then their offspring were born with pre-stretched necks.
If the biology teacher is good at his job, he then explains that that's not what actually happened. In reality, some giraffes were born with long necks because of random mutations (which are mostly bad or irrelevant, but sometimes good). Since they had an advantage over the shorter necked giraffes, they lived longer and had more offspring. This natural selection was how the long-neck gene spread through the giraffe population.
When the students remember evolution, however, they remember the giraffes-stretching-their-necks story because it's more visual and easier to understand. It sounds like a Just So Story.
The random mutation and natural selection story, in contrast, is counter-intuitive and complex and requires an understanding of genetics that most high school students (and most college-graduates) don't have.
(All this fits in with what Bloom and Weisberg were saying, by the way.)
Their theory is interesting and almost surely correct.
I've excerpted the paragraph below for my own separate purpose, not because it summarizes Bloom and Weisberg's theory:
Consider, for example, that most adults who claim to believe that natural selection can explain the evolution of species are confused about what natural selection actually is—when pressed, they often describe it as a Lamarckian process in which animals somehow give birth to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Their belief in natural selection, then, is not rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments. Rather, this scientifically credulous sub-population are deferring to the people who say that this is how evolution works. They trust the scientists.
The popular confusion of Lamarck's theory of evolution with Darwin's theory of evolution (and later theories) is one of my main pet peeves. I am truly amazed at how often well-educated people don't know the difference.
In my first year of college, one of my honors-program classmates derided me for completely rejecting Darwin's theory. Of course, I wasn't doing that. I was only telling my classmate that he was incorrect when he said that evolution took place as a result of the inheritance of acquired traits . He thought that this was the basis of Darwin's theory.
To be fair, Darwin's theory isn't perfect, but my classmate was clearly talking about Lamarckism, calling it Darwinism, and believing that it was established fact. For example, he was claiming that if you bound a person's ears beginning in childhood, then that person's children would somehow inherit small ears. I have since learned how common such mistakes are.
This is my explanation for how the confusion happens:
In high-school biology classes many out-dated evolutionary theories are explained along with the most up-to-date theories. This is as it should be since the students need to learn about the history of science.
Lamarck's theory is often illustrated by the "giraffe story" which claims that some ancient proto-giraffes stretched their necks to reach the higher leaves and then their offspring were born with pre-stretched necks.
If the biology teacher is good at his job, he then explains that that's not what actually happened. In reality, some giraffes were born with long necks because of random mutations (which are mostly bad or irrelevant, but sometimes good). Since they had an advantage over the shorter necked giraffes, they lived longer and had more offspring. This natural selection was how the long-neck gene spread through the giraffe population.
When the students remember evolution, however, they remember the giraffes-stretching-their-necks story because it's more visual and easier to understand. It sounds like a Just So Story.
The random mutation and natural selection story, in contrast, is counter-intuitive and complex and requires an understanding of genetics that most high school students (and most college-graduates) don't have.
(All this fits in with what Bloom and Weisberg were saying, by the way.)
posted by Randall at 11:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home