This text was written following a discussion that arose in Israel, but I think it could also interest my readers elsewhere: Recently, a heated and loud debate on the teaching of evolution arose here, raising the question, "How important is it?" Not from the standpoint of whether the theory is well-founded (as a theory in science is something very well-based, not a hypothesis) but whether it's so crucial as to create conflicts instead of simply teaching biology and downplaying lessons on this topic. First and foremost, the answer is yes. The arguments against downplaying focused mainly on the fact that suppressing a subject, especially a scientific one, due to religious belief, opens a door to darkness, irrelevant of whether it's a necessary foundation for the field or an optional addition. This notion bothered me. Evolution is not an addition; it shouldn't be. Evolution is the basis, the very knowledge upon which all biology studies rest. There's a significant article by Theodosius Dobzhansky, who led the evolutionary synthesis (remember this, I'll elaborate later), called: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The more one delves into evolution, the truer this statement rings. Removing evolution from biology studies is like removing tectonic movement from geology studies. Does it make sense to say, "Why are mountains high? That's just how the world was formed"? Without evolution, one can learn about the description of phenomena and the current state, but not what caused it or what will happen. As someone involved in (applied!) evolutionary research, I also understand how much more intense the religious debate would have been if evolution were taught more seriously and thoroughly as mandatory for all students (as would be logical). Evolution challenges not just the age of the world and the design behind the biological system but also the complexity in nature, which doesn't necessarily demonstrate intelligent design. Some argue that if a complex clock requires an engineer to create, what about the eye and brain? But learning about evolution shows how mostly everything develops here in a flawed manner. Many beings get stuck in suboptimal ways. Complexity accumulates clumsily; sometimes, it's simpler to go back to the drawing board and "rebuild" rather than deal with the flawed model. Many traits and characteristics are carried unnecessarily through development. And much of nature's diversity comes from "genetic drift" or, in other words, just happens by chance. From a wise perspective, evolution is a messed up, slow, and clumsy process. In science, nothing can be said with 100% certainty. Is the Earth round? Almost certainly. Is evolution the source of diversity in nature? Very likely, as no other theory even comes close to explaining how evolution only strengthens from the accumulation of observations in nature over the years. Maybe, however, the world was created. It's impossible to absolutely dismiss this. But if the world was created, it was done so containing all evidence of evolution as it happened over the last billions of years and as it occurs now in a way that can be observed and followed. *Regarding the synthesis I mentioned, with this Dobzhansky dude, well that's essentially the evolution we learn and research. We don't learn Darwin's Origin of Species because it's an incomplete theory, a foundation of evolution. We learn a synthesis of several theories, primarily two - Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and Gregor Mendel's inheritance.
This text was written following a discussion that arose in Israel, but I think it could also interest my readers elsewhere: Recently, a heated and loud debate on the teaching of evolution arose here, raising the question, "How important is it?" Not from the standpoint of whether the theory is well-founded (as a theory in science is something very well-based, not a hypothesis) but whether it's so crucial as to create conflicts instead of simply teaching biology and downplaying lessons on this topic. First and foremost, the answer is yes. The arguments against downplaying focused mainly on the fact that suppressing a subject, especially a scientific one, due to religious belief, opens a door to darkness, irrelevant of whether it's a necessary foundation for the field or an optional addition. This notion bothered me. Evolution is not an addition; it shouldn't be. Evolution is the basis, the very knowledge upon which all biology studies rest. There's a significant article by Theodosius Dobzhansky, who led the evolutionary synthesis (remember this, I'll elaborate later), called: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The more one delves into evolution, the truer this statement rings. Removing evolution from biology studies is like removing tectonic movement from geology studies. Does it make sense to say, "Why are mountains high? That's just how the world was formed"? Without evolution, one can learn about the description of phenomena and the current state, but not what caused it or what will happen. As someone involved in (applied!) evolutionary research, I also understand how much more intense the religious debate would have been if evolution were taught more seriously and thoroughly as mandatory for all students (as would be logical). Evolution challenges not just the age of the world and the design behind the biological system but also the complexity in nature, which doesn't necessarily demonstrate intelligent design. Some argue that if a complex clock requires an engineer to create, what about the eye and brain? But learning about evolution shows how mostly everything develops here in a flawed manner. Many beings get stuck in suboptimal ways. Complexity accumulates clumsily; sometimes, it's simpler to go back to the drawing board and "rebuild" rather than deal with the flawed model. Many traits and characteristics are carried unnecessarily through development. And much of nature's diversity comes from "genetic drift" or, in other words, just happens by chance. From a wise perspective, evolution is a messed up, slow, and clumsy process. In science, nothing can be said with 100% certainty. Is the Earth round? Almost certainly. Is evolution the source of diversity in nature? Very likely, as no other theory even comes close to explaining how evolution only strengthens from the accumulation of observations in nature over the years. Maybe, however, the world was created. It's impossible to absolutely dismiss this. But if the world was created, it was done so containing all evidence of evolution as it happened over the last billions of years and as it occurs now in a way that can be observed and followed. *Regarding the synthesis I mentioned, with this Dobzhansky dude, well that's essentially the evolution we learn and research. We don't learn Darwin's Origin of Species because it's an incomplete theory, a foundation of evolution. We learn a synthesis of several theories, primarily two - Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and Gregor Mendel's inheritance.
@shay_fleishon My study is in language. Hasn’t DNA sequencing replaced guessing evolutionary inheritance? We can just measure two DNA to find what the similarities and differences are! Yes it’s the same principle but without the guesswork. I think the language of DNA is more useful than 1/2