New York Times piece

There is a great column in the New York Times that’s worth printing out and saving for future reference.

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.

The second reason for teaching evolution is that the subject is immediately relevant here and now.

The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence.

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in In the News. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to New York Times piece

  1. James F says:

    Olivia Judson is an engaging new pro-science voice; I’m always glad to see her pieces on the subject.

    What also needs to be appreciated is that, in the global scientific community, antievolution arguments are given roughly the same weight that NASA gives to Moon landing hoax conspiracies. Open any issue of Science, Nature, Cell, or any other peer-reviewed scientific journal: evolution is as accepted as gravity, electromagnetism, atomic theory, and similar evidence-based concepts. Creationists live in a state of staggering denial.

  2. zygosporangia says:

    The third reason to teach evolution is more philosophical. It concerns the development of an attitude toward evidence.

    John McDonald in 3…2..1…

Comments are closed.