The Fallacy in Teaching Macroevolution as Scientific Theory
The Fallacy in Teaching Macroevolution as Scientific Theory
March 21, 2011
A seemingly endless debate continues over the legitimacy of teaching evolutionary theory in classrooms, particularly in communities where religion plays a prominent role in community life. Some church leaders, teachers and school board members argue that alternate explanations provided by creationists or proponents of intelligent design should be taught alongside those of evolutionary theorists in science classrooms. People who are proponents of evolutionary theory are quick to offer a retort, usually suggesting that evolution is a proven fact; while denouncing the two aforementioned opposing views as belief systems which cannot be subjected to scientific analysis. Therefore, they suggest, such views are not appropriate subjects for science classrooms. As too often occurs in such debates, each side is quick to dismiss the assertions of the other as fantasy, and imply that the sensible and reasonable person should not engage in non-productive contention with such headstrong opposition. When dismantling the arguments from each side, it becomes apparent that the most heated points of controversy often boil down to a matter of semantics. The scientific use of the term “theory” is quite different from the use of the word in general conversation. A scientific theory is a structured argument used to explain why things occur the way they do in the physical world, based on tested, measurable scientific evidence. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an assertion about something (a speculative guess) that a scientist expects to be supported by future scientific finding.
Microevolution is a theory (as is almost everything in scientific study) which has been legitimately supported by laboratory analysis. Species can, and do, undergo genetic changes over generations which result in modifications of those species as. This has been observed and documented in laboratory
March 21, 2011
A seemingly endless debate continues over the legitimacy of teaching evolutionary theory in classrooms, particularly in communities where religion plays a prominent role in community life. Some church leaders, teachers and school board members argue that alternate explanations provided by creationists or proponents of intelligent design should be taught alongside those of evolutionary theorists in science classrooms. People who are proponents of evolutionary theory are quick to offer a retort, usually suggesting that evolution is a proven fact; while denouncing the two aforementioned opposing views as belief systems which cannot be subjected to scientific analysis. Therefore, they suggest, such views are not appropriate subjects for science classrooms. As too often occurs in such debates, each side is quick to dismiss the assertions of the other as fantasy, and imply that the sensible and reasonable person should not engage in non-productive contention with such headstrong opposition. When dismantling the arguments from each side, it becomes apparent that the most heated points of controversy often boil down to a matter of semantics. The scientific use of the term “theory” is quite different from the use of the word in general conversation. A scientific theory is a structured argument used to explain why things occur the way they do in the physical world, based on tested, measurable scientific evidence. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is an assertion about something (a speculative guess) that a scientist expects to be supported by future scientific finding.
Microevolution is a theory (as is almost everything in scientific study) which has been legitimately supported by laboratory analysis. Species can, and do, undergo genetic changes over generations which result in modifications of those species as. This has been observed and documented in laboratory
References: Ayala, F. J. (1982). Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 3 (Symposia and Invited Papers). 275-291. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/192425 Bergman, J. (1992). Some Biological Problems with the Natural Selection Theory. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 29(3). Retrieved from http://www.rae.org Chen, G. F., Schemske, D.W., Sobel, J. M., & Watt, L. R. (2010) The Biology of Speciation. Evolution. 64(2). 295-315. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com Gregory, T. R. & Ellis, A.J.(2009). Misconceptions of Evolution Among Science Graduate Students. Bioscience. 59(9). 792-799. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com Lawton, G. (2009). Axing Darwin’s Tree. New Scientist. 201(2692), 33-39. Retrieved from http://www.ebscohost.com