The Lone Ranger

Okay, here's the deal. I'm the head TA in Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy class. The instructor of the course teaches it from an explicitly evolutionary perspective, so that's all well and good (I mean, how else could you teach a CVA course?).

Today, one of the students asked me something about Creationism, and I replied that no one could be intelligent, intellectually honest, well-educated in the biological sciences, and a Creationist. No one disputed my response, so we moved on.

After the class, my assistant TA came up to me and said that she is a Creationist, and wondered if I thought that made her stupid. "Ignorant, yes," I told her, "but not stupid." After some discussion of the matter, we came to the conclusion that she's a believer in theistic evolution, which is all well and good -- at least she isn't a Bible-thumper who insists that the world is only 6,000 years old. Still, I nearly ground my teeth when she said that metabolic processes are simply to complex to have arisen "through chance," and show clear evidence of a Creator.

The incident got me thinking, though. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of the people who take Anatomy and/or Physiology classes are planning to go into one of the medical professions, or into pharmacy school -- in many schools, these people constitute the great majority of the "Biology" majors. Yet, in many colleges and universities, these pre-med, pre-vet, PA, or pharmacy students are not required to take even a single course on Evolutionary Theory.

So, the upshot of it is that we're graduating large numbers of people from our colleges and universities who have degrees in "Biology," yet have never taken a course in Evolution, and know little or nothing about the subject.

When I was living in North Carolina, I often found myself teaching Introductory Biology courses to students who were seeking teaching certificates in high school-level Biology. These incipient teachers were not required to take any courses in Evolutionary Theory -- most of them took only two introductory-level courses ("Biology for the Braindead," as those of us who taught them sometimes referred to them) and then were granted their certificates. Needless to say, even if these people weren't Creationists themselves, with such a minimal education in the biological sciences, they were in no position to explain to their students why Creationism fails as science.

There are times when it's difficult not to feel despair while contemplating the future of our society.

Sadly, even those students who major in the sciences are seldom taught much about how science works, and what distinguishes it from pseudoscience. From time to time, people make a fuss about how we need to improve science education in this country. One thing I would like to see is a requirement that every student who majors in some branch of science is required to spend at least one semester learning scientific methodology. (Actually, I'd like to see all college students required to take such a course -- in this day and age, one cannot truly be said to be "educated" if one doesn't have a basic understanding of scientific principles.)

Okay, I'm done ranting for now.

Cheers,

Michael

Dr Rick

As one who has been through 14 years of undergraduate and postgraduate training to become a physician, I completely concur with Michael.

Rick

DNAunion

DNAunion: On what part? All of them? What about this one?

DNAunion: If it is the importance of learning evolutionary theory in order for "pre-med, pre-vet, PA or pharmacy students" to graduate that you agree with, then how do you believe it will play such a crucial and indispensable part in their future work?

Let's see... If I bring my dog into the vet because it has heart worms, does the vet HAVE TO KNOW what the evolutionary history of the worms was in order to sucessfully treat my dog?

If I need a prescription to ward off a bacterial infection, does the pharmacist HAVE TO KNOW the difference between allopatric and sympatric speciation?

If I go to the doctor because I have a a detached retina, does the doctor HAVE TO KNOW that vertebrate eyes evolved from those of amphioxus?

How will having an in-depth knowledge of evolutionary theory alter the way these professionals treat me (or my pet) or the quality of care I (or my pet) will receive?

RufusAtticus

I also concur.

Your fellow TA seems to be rather confused as to what constutes a creationist. A creationist is not simply one who believes in creation, but rather special creation. Special creation is the belief that God (or alternate possibility) created the major orders of life separate and distince at some time in the past. Simply put, creationists do not believe in universal common descent but rather choose to view the world as a product of limited common descent.

I wonder if your fellow TA has ever thought about this?

-RvFvS

DNAunion

DNAunion: No reply yet. Okay, I'll ask again.

DNAunion: On what part? All of them? What about this one?

DNAunion: If it is the importance of learning evolutionary theory in order for "pre-med, pre-vet, PA or pharmacy students" to graduate that you agree with, then how do you believe it will play such a crucial and indispensable part in their future work?

Let's see... If I bring my dog into the vet because it has heart worms, does the vet HAVE TO KNOW what the evolutionary history of the worms was in order to sucessfully treat my dog?

If I need a prescription to ward off a bacterial infection, does the pharmacist HAVE TO KNOW the difference between allopatric and sympatric speciation?

If I go to the doctor because I have a a detached retina, does the doctor HAVE TO KNOW that vertebrate eyes evolved from those of amphioxus?

How will having an in-depth knowledge of evolutionary theory alter the way these professionals treat me (or my pet) or the quality of care I (or my pet) will receive?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Automaton

DNAunion: We heard you the first time you [unplesant person] There is no need to keep repeating your posts over and over, we will reply to them if we want to, we don't need to be bombarded by them nonstop. It's bad manners, and it might be violating forum policy.


[Edited by Oolon: Now now, Automaton. No need to stoop so low so quickly. He's not randman, y'know! At least, not yet.]

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

Again, a three-hour gap. Tell you what, I’m posting this at 10.45am here. I expect a reply by lunchtime.

Only to the extent that one can drive a car without knowing what goes on under the bonnet. That’s fine in its way. But if you take your car to the garage, you expect the mechanics to know why upgrading the carb will improve performance. They don’t have to know, but it sure helps. With the worms, you can get by with just knowing that a particular pill will kill them, but in order to know how the pills work, you need to have an inkling about the worms’ life cycle and biology. This is utterly underpinned by their evolutionary history.

Such depth may not be strictly necessary, but one usually hopes that when one consults an expert, they have a rough idea of what’s going on.

No, but he/she should damn well know why giving you another course of the same antibiotic is a bad idea. They need to know that evolution has something to say about it, so need to know the basics. As to "warding off" a bacterial infection, they very much should know the dangers of prophylactic use of antibiotics.

As a background to understanding eyes in general, yes. It is not essential, but they’re the ones allegedly with an understanding of biology. In order to know how retinas work, it may be useful to know where they came from. And amphioxus is a modern species, not an ancestor to anything.

“In depth” is not necessary. But an engine manufacturer without at least passing familiarity with the laws of thermodynamics would be prone to more mistakes than one with such basic understanding.

You are saying that it doesn’t matter if these people function without a even a cursory understanding of the underlying nature of all biology, without the full range of information at their disposal. Without all the evidence that’s relevant to hand, mistakes can happen.

As an example, take the xenotransplantation case of "Baby Fae", who was born with an underdeveloped heart. She was given the heart of a baboon at Loma Linda University Medical Center, California in 1984. She survived for 20 days after surgery with the help of the immunosuppressant drugs, but eventually died from rejection of the transplanted heart and other organ failure.

Fair, and sad, enough. But the troubling aspect is that Leonard Bailey, the lead surgeon for Baby Fae's operation, when interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1985 admitted to being a fundamentalist. Bailey described how he chose baboons as donors because their hearts were the right size and were available. Furthermore he said, “The scientists that are keen on the evolutionary concept that we actually developed serially from subhuman primates to humans, with mitochondrial DNA dating and that sort of thing, the differences have to do with millions of years. That boggles my mind somehow. I don't understand it well, and I'm not sure that it means a great deal in terms of tissue homology.''
(See Evolution, Vol 55 No 12, December 2001.)

Now, a chimpanzee heart may not have faired any better. But with an understanding of the FACT of evolution, it would have been a better choice at least. So (provided one thinks xenotransplantation is a good idea in the first place), without understanding evolution, a stupid mistake was made.

TTFN, Oolon

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: Okay, here ya go. :-)

DNAunion: Seriously flawed rebuttal.

The analogy to evolution of an existing heartworm would be the HISTORICAL LINEAGE of the automobile: knowing what a Model T and an Etzel (or whateever) were and how a particular contemporary car evolved from which ancestors and how. Knowing that kind of stuff IS totally irrelevant to driving a car.

DNAunion: No I wouldn't.

The last "dozen" cars I have had had fuel injection. It wouldn't bother me a bit if the dude didn't even know what a carbeurator was (look, those things are so old I don't even know if I spelled it right).

DNAunion: Hogwash.

The worms' life cycle can be fully studied and completely understood right here in the here and now; a historical perspective and/or evolutionary theory is not needed: just good old biology.

DNAunion: Sure, experts that deal with things that exist today - contemporary cars with fuel injection, heartworms, etc. - should have an idea about what's going on; not what supposedly went on. If they know how these extant things are put together and function - here.....now.... - then they can do their jobs perfectly well.

DNAunion: No. The history of the eye is irrelevant to its current anatomy and physiology and to how one should treat pathologies and other problems.

DNAunion: Not really. They would gain so little usable knowledge from knowing that our eyes evolved from those of amphioxus-like organisms.

DNAunion: Yeah, I know...I left out a word or two originally.

DNAunion: Okay, then why the need for such students to have completed a full course devoted to evolutionary theory?

(And isn't it you guys who keep saying how easy evolution is to understand??)

DNAunion: Back to flawed logic.

Of course an engine manufacturer should know the laws of thermodynamics; that relates directly to how things he/she is working on TODAY actually function. But a vet or doctor can know in great detail how things he/she is working on TODAY actually function without knowing anything about how the existing organism or system evolved.

DNAunion: No, I am not saying that...pay attention. The comment was made that a cursory understanding is not enough and that a full course on evolutionary theory was required. I don't agree that "med/vet" students need to complete a full course on evolutionary theory.

DNAunion: And how the human eye evolved is irrelevent to fixing one that is damaged in the here and now.

I'd love to go on, but I have to head to work now.

pangloss

Not that I really want a reply from Rick - I certainly have no desire to get into anything with him again - but the irony was especailly rich...

On "DNAunion's" own discussion board
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ID_E_A/ - read the rules, they are a hoot!):


On JANUARY 4, I posted
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ID_E_A/message/34" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ID_E_A/message/34</a>

No reply as of yet.

Then, on APRIL 2, I posted:
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ID_E_A/message/35" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ID_E_A/message/35</a>

No reply as of yet. This one is especiually intreresting, because it is on the only topic that Rick seems able or willing to discuss at any length - origin of life research (or the implications of other discoveries there of).

Again, the irony (or is it hypocrisy?) is too rich...

MrDarwin

It will alter it greatly. Morphological, physiological, and biochemical similarities and differences can be predicted based on known evolutionary relationships.

A veterinary student will often end up treating any number of animals (not just dogs and cats). And knowing how to treat an animal often depends on knowing how to treat a closely related animal--in other words, it requires an understanding of animal relationships. Horses and cows are not the same thing. Sheep and goats are more similar in their anatomy and physiology than either is to a dog. You do not treat an iguana (reptile) like a hamster (mammal).

Would a ferret, a cat, a dog, and a pet skunk all have the same diagnosis for similar symptoms, or all require exactly the same treatment? Are they all susceptible to the same diseases, or to the same degree?

Would one treat a dolphin as a fish or as a mammal? If a mammal, how would one choose which other mammal species might give the best insights to treating it?