Baloo

Perhaps a more fitting example would be betweeen two translators, Jack and Jill, who are both fluent in the same 8 romantic languages. Jack, though setting aside a fraction of his time to study vocab, also studied Latin, while Jill simply reviewed vocabulary (Latin is a dead language, afterall). Jack took classes learning the historic roots and key developments of the 8 languages, Jill just kept practicing her vocabulary. Jack studied the modern, and to a lesser degree, the ancient histories of the cultures in which the languages were spoken. Jill, well, you know, just kept on with the vocabulary.

To accurately translate French to German, does one need to know Latin? No. Does one need to know the major forces and events which shaped the German or French language? Nope. Does one need to know the modern histories of German or French culture, or their history with each other? Of course not. But, DNA, based on their educational difference alone, who would you trust to more accurately translate a discourse between the leaders of Germany and France? Jack or Jill?

JohnR

"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."
It bothers me because these are the people the local paper run to for opinions when evolution comes up. They may never had evolutionary course but they are quoted as experts. That is my beef.

The Lone Ranger

As Oolon Colluphid correctly noted, what I found so disappointing regarding the conversation with my fellow TA is that someone who has a degree in biology, someone who teaches biology, could be so ignorant of the most fundamental principle of biology as to unashamedly spout the Creationist mantra that evolution cannot explain the complexity and diversity of life because “it’s all about chance.” She apparently accepts that the Earth is very old, and that living creatures have changed over time – her interpretation is that God instigated and guides the process, with the express purpose of bringing about Homo sapiens, “the pinnacle of Creation,” as she put it. As I told her, this makes her more of a theistic evolutionist than a true creationist.

No one is arguing that a veterinarian or physician or pharmacist needs as detailed an understanding of evolutionary theory as an evolutionary biologist does, but they should have some understanding of it, since it’s so relevant to their fields. As has been pointed out before, for example, if the average physician had some training in evolutionary theory, they’d be far more effective at treating (and preventing) infectious diseases. A colleague of mine who is trained as a biologist but has worked in the field of medical research tells me that when she used to give lectures to physicians regarding antibiotic resistance in disease organisms. A great many of these physicians told her that they simply couldn’t understand why their antibiotics so quickly became useless. (Even worse -- many of them didn’t know that antibiotics are useless against a viral infection, or why!) When she told them that anyone with an understanding of basic evolutionary principles would predict the evolution of antibiotic resistance, they typically didn’t have any idea at all what she was talking about.

Actually, we have a pretty decent course here at WSU that I help teach, called BIO 150 – Introduction to Evolution. It’s geared toward non-majors, but I truly wish more biology majors would take it. During the first third or so of the class, we teach them scientific principles and critical thinking techniques – how to formulate and evaluate hypotheses, for example. During the rest of the course, we give them a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. By the time they finish the course, the students may not be equipped to debate the relative merits of punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism, but they can respond to the claims that evolution is “only a theory,” or that it has never been observed.

All too often, we do a poor job of explaining scientific principles even to science students. It’s no surprise then, that such a large percentage of the American public is scientifically illiterate. It’s also why I often see Letters to the Editor in the local newspapers which start out “I have a degree in biology, and I don’t believe in evolution . . .”

Certainly, I think that people who are planning to teach biology should be required to gain some understanding of the principle of evolution.

Most colleges and universities require all students to take one or two introductory science courses. For the majority of students, this will be their only real academic exposure to science. Yet, these introductory courses rarely stress critical thinking and rarely provide students with any instruction in scientific methodology or principles. That’s one reason why we have so many people going around insisting that science is “just another way of looking at things” and “no more ‘privileged’ than any other viewpoint.”

Why science is unique, and not just “another way of looking at things” is something that I think every educated person should appreciate.

Cheers,

Michael

MrDarwin

Michael, try asking your TA whether evolutionary theory cannot explain or has not explained these things to her satisfaction. Then ask her how she would distinguish between the two.

Typhon

Somewhat OT:

Is DNAunion just a troll? He seems both irascible and incoherent. I've noticed that he/she pops in on other threads like a spring-driven rabbit, and tends to repeat itself if posters don't refute its strange arguments instantly.

Odd.

As for the topic: I would not want my pet let alone myself, operated on or diagnosed by someone who either misunderstood or never learned one of the cornerstones of all biological science: evolution. If they didn't learn this, who knows what other key science fundamentals they might be lacking, perhaps they never learned anything about the germ theory of disease or they still think medicine is all about the right balance of bodily humors.

.T.

More amazing than science is the number of people who know amazingly little about it.

Gooch's dad

yes, TLR, it is sad, isn't it?

I dated a nice young med student last fall who is in her 3rd year here at UW. She did her undergrad coursework in 3 years, as a 'pre-med' major.

And she is a creationist. She never thought too much about whether she believed old-earth or young-earth stuff, but she thought that even 3 billion years was 'too short a time' for complex life to have evolved.

When I told a friend that story, his witty reply was "3 billion years is too short a time? She'd be tough to please in bed!"

I have chatted with people online who are getting medical training, and many of them claim that what they learn about the complexity of the human body is what decides it. They claim that the human body is so complex that there is no way that it could have evolved. Weird. When I ask them if they think a chimp could have evolved, they don't usually have a good answer.

Dr.GH

This is a complex issue and I should only reply after due consideration.

<<< NAW >>>

When I last taught at a medical college(1985), we (the faculty) would have this running argument about what a physician needed to know and how could we teach them what they needed to know. As background to that argument, we would argue about what an entering student needed to know, what a "good" physician was and would we recognize one if we met them ... Sometimes we would argue about patient treatment.

I don't recall that that argument ever ended.

One thing that we did agree on was that there is a basic (dare I say fundamental)difference between a scientist and a clinician, and that they could not be trained in the same way.

I'll bet, and at any odds you name, that the argument is still being carried out today.

Principia

Eh, not worth it.

SC

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

DNAunion

DNAunion: Not me. As long as the doctor working on my eyes – or my son’s eyes - is thoroughly familiar with the anatomy and physiology of the eye he is currently working on, and knows how to correct the problem at hand, that’s perfectly fine with me.

Similarly, I don’t care if my car mechanic even knows what an Etsel, Model T, or De Soto is, or that cars used to have to be manually cranked to get them started: as long as he is familiar with the way the car he is working on functions and can correct any ills, that’s fine with me. Similarly, I don’t care if the computer tech fixing my Pentium IV PC knows what CPM was: as long as he knows how the computer he is currently working on is put together and functions and is capable of repairing it, that’s fine with me. Similarly, I don’t care if the electronics technician I take my CD player to for repairs knows what a 33 or a 45 are: as long as he knows the “anatomy and physiology” of CD players and is capable of repairing the ones he works on.

DNAunion: You don’t need evolutionary theory to tell you that there is an optic disc where the neurons that run in front of the retina meet before forming the optic nerve that runs back towards the brain. Why is there a blind spot in our eyes? Because there cannot be photoreceptors where the optic disc is. This can all be learned from directly examining the anatomy and physiology of eyes in the here and now.

DNAunion

DNAunion: So give me a example of some biological fact critical to performing the function of ridding a dog of heartworms that cannot be understood without having completed a course devoted to evolutionary theory.