Considering how often scientific breakthroughs covered even by the general mass media depend upon an understanding of evolutionary processes, I’m kind of surprised this question still comes up as often as it does in many venues. Clearly our public education system in the U.S. has for the most part not done a great job of teaching The Theory of Evolution and WHY it is so often called “the very basis underlying an understanding of the biological sciences.”
@johnZ, let’s take agronomy as an example. Millions of dollars worth of new agriculture products (e.g., seed, herbicides, insecticides) have already been generated from the study and application of the evolutionary processes which produced our current food crops and in developing new ones. In the case of corn/maize, scientists have used knowledge of evolution to determine which wild plant species and subspecies evolved and combined to produce the amazing polyploid field and sweet corn varieties we eat today–and then to apply that knowledge to produce better corn varieties by “playing out” the potential “alternate” evolutionary paths in order to produce varieties (and even new species) which are better able to survive climate change and marginal environments. As a former farmer, I have been amazed to learn how agribusiness is putting a lot of their knowledge of evolution into evolving PERENNIAL species to replace the ANNUAL species our world depends upon for most of our foods: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, sorghum, peanuts, to name a few. Imagine how much scarce resources could be saved with such perennial versions! (And that includes the huge problem of topsoil erosion.) They could be planted one year and then harvested that same year plus several more years thereafter–or with some new species, even multiple harvests in a single year. Another new “sub-industry” will soon be selling bushes and trees which are so efficiently bioluminescent that they will provide street lighting and path lighting after sundown–all without consuming countless kilowatt-hours of electricity per year and without the carbon footprint and environmental costs of power generation.
Those who are unfamiliar with how an understanding of evolutionary processes serves these many new industries and products will claim that all such innovations could be done using other principles and methodologies of the biological sciences. That’s not true but suppose for a moment that they are correct and that there are other ways to make these advancements. Why would any scientist wish to work with one hand tied behind their back? Could many practical advancements in chemistry have been made without an understanding of Atomic Theory? Yes. Indeed, for centuries alchemists depended upon random trial and error for many of their discoveries that led to chemistry as an empirical science. Yet why would anybody want to know LESS about the underlying processes and phenomena which are so important to one’s field of science and thereby provide the theoretical foundations behind the practical applications?
I found this excerpt from JohnZ’s post very interesting:
Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
That quotation prompted this response:
It is important when answering this question, to distinguish between the atmosphere of evolutionary theory, and the logic of evolution without which such discoveries could not have happened.
What is the “atmosphere of evolutionary theory”? And what is the “logic of evolution”? Do all scientific theories have their own “atmosphere” and a “logic”? I’m a former science professor and I can’t say that I ever used those terms before nor have I seen those phrases in any science textbook.
Johnz, I get the impression that there is some sort of “fear” of The Theory of Evolution in such wording. Also, the quotation from Dr. Marc Kirschner is–sad to say–a rather infamous quote-mine that I’ve noticed on many anti-evolution websites. You will find it discussed and debunked on countless websites including this science blog, which addresses that topic in very interesting ways. Basically, when you read the quotation in its original context and entirety, Dr. Kirschner was lamenting the fact that biologists often get so focused on their own subfield or specialization such that they don’t always take advantage of and utilize the discoveries from those in other specializations. Therefore, he called for more application of what evolutionary biologists have learned, not less! He was urging all biologists to apply what’s been gleaned by evolutionary biologists to their respective subfields and research specializations.
Unfortunately, whenever I see an ellipsis in such quotations–especially if it comes from an anti-evolution source such as various ID and Young Earth Creationist websites–I’ve got in the habit of verifying the quotation or even looking it up in one of several “quote-mine directories”. You see, I myself was an “anti-evolution activist” long ago as a young greenhorn professor and it was these types of often questionable tactics by my “creation conference weekend” colleagues which conflicted with my ethical values as a Christ-follower. After much tedious study of the Hebrew scriptures and eventually a great deal of personal research into the scientific evidence associated with The Theory of Evolution and billions of years of earth history, I eventually found myself unable to continue as a “creation science” speaker/debater of origins topics. Thankfully, my study brought me to the understanding that there was no conflict between the scientific evidence from God’s creation and the scriptural evidence from God’s Bible. The evidence from both brought me to a harmony and a greater appreciation and thanksgiving for God’s wisdom and power as displayed in his creation, including the evolutionary processes which God used to diversify life on this planet over many many millions of years.)
Even if evolutionary biology had zero “practical applications”, it would be no less essential to a solid foundation in understanding the biosphere of our planet. Moreover, as a Christ-follower and a scientist (retired), I want to know how God decided to create the diverse life we observe all around us. Just as with every other scientific theory which explains some aspect of God’s creation, The Theory of Evolution gives us more reasons to praise God because, as the Psalmist said, “The heavens are declaring the glory of God, and their expanse shows the work of his hands.” The same can be said of the work of God’s hands below that sky, every cell of every species, and every evolutionary process that God ordained to carry out his will for life on earth.
Truly, a process of educating myself in both the scriptures and the creation that began with some considerable hesitation and frustration eventually led to a greater knowledge of God and even more reasons to worship him as my Creator. Now I consider evolutionary processes among the most grand and incredible of God’s creations. Today I am very thankful that I serve a God far more wise and powerful than the very small and limited deity I imagined in my youth. Even many years later, I still feel a bit like Job after God rebuked him. Hopefully, I will no longer ever allow the cherished traditions of my church or “spiritual heroes” to determine what God would and wouldn’t do in engineering his creation. God has given us answers to our questions in his Bible and in his Creation. Both testimony to what God has done. So I no longer accept the answers in one while rejecting the other. God doesn’t contradict himself and God certainly doesn’t plant evidence in his creation that is intended to deceive. As I used to tell my students: “God created it. I observe it. I believe it. And that settles it.” That goes for both of God’s great works of authorship.