More on evolution as doctrine

[Richard Zander]

Some evolution science is philosophy-based, e.g. cladistics s.str. Other
evolution science uses standard null hypothesis testing. This is evident in
non-phylogenetics (microevolution) evolution studies. It is also evident in
statistical phylogenetics. One basic null in evolutionary science is that
for every three arrangements of nearest neighbor lineages on a cladogram,
the number of steps of the optimal branch and that of each of the other two
branches are equal (i.e. all branches are sister groups and the support for
the optimal branch is 1/3 that of the sum of the support for the other two
branches) and all resolution is randomly generated. Rejection of the null at
some level of confidence is an example of scientific evolutionary analysis.
There are other means of determining reliability, but most are based on
nonparametric statistics.

All problems you pointed out with presenting evolutionary studies as science
is because phylogenetics has generally ignored the actual amount of support
for contrary branch arrangements (and I don't mean homoplasy).

_______________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
Email: richard.zander at mobot.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: john Grehan [SMTP:jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:07 PM
> To:   TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
> Subject:      [TAXACOM] More on evolution as doctrine
>
> As a follow up on some of my earlier TAXACOM critiques of evolution being
> taught as a doctrine (at least in the US) I noticed the Society of
> Systematic Biology made the following statement on its web page in support
> of teaching of evolution:
>
> "SSB affirms that evolutionary biology is a fundamental and necessary
> component of an excellent science education. SSB strongly supports the
> teaching of evolution and teaching about the process of science in
> classrooms, museums, and science centers. Modern research in global
> environmental change, agriculture, medicine, and the spread and control of
> disease all depend on understanding evolutionary concepts. Thus,
> understanding biological systems, their evolutionary history and their
> mechanisms of change is crucial to human health and well-being. Awareness
> of current views concerning evolutionary biology, including natural
> selection, is an essential part of modern cultural and scientific literacy
> for all citizens. Excellence in education requires that teachers and
> students continually evaluate scientific ideas in light of evidence;
> however, learning and inquiry are inhibited when educators feel pressured
> to alter their teaching of fundamental concepts of science in response to
> demands external to the scientific disciplines."
>
> My observation is that there is nothing here to describe what constitutes
> evolution as a science. There is reference to teach the process of science
> (whatever that might be) but not the process of evolutionary science.
>
> The Systematic Biology homepage linked to several other web sites
> including the National Center for Science Education, Inc. described as a
> nonprofit, tax-exempt membership organization working to defend the
> teaching of evolution against sectarian attack. It states it is a
> nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep
> evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out.
>
> This is followed by the statement that while most of NCSE's work involves
> defending evolution against attacks, it also works to increase public
> understanding of evolution and science "as a way of knowing." This seems
> to me to be an implicit view that evolution is a philosophical perspective
> rather than a science as such. Certainly I have never heard of any other
> science being characterized with this kind of focus.
>
> The web page includes programs to "help teachers who want to improve their
> teaching of evolution".
> I took a brief look at the various 'resources' and at this point have not
> found anything that characterizes evolution as a science or as a
> scientific research program (i.e. specifies the methodological principle
> of the science). There was one article by Eugenie C. Scott on Science,
> Religion and Evolution.
>
> Scott states "when I use the term evolution, I will be speaking about the
> concept of shared ancestry of living things, of descent with modification.
> Unlike critics of evolution, I do not define evolution as a world view, or
> philosophical system, because to me, evolution is a science. So let me
> define how I will use science in this paper." So looked further and was
> told that "science is a way of understanding the natural world, using
> natural forces and processes. Period." OK, so where does that leave
> evolution. Is evolution simply a "way of understanding"?
>
> Scott emphases this is not philosophy, but this claim seems problematic as
> I read through his paper I could not find anything that gave me any real
> clue as to what constitutes the methodological science of evolution.
> Evolution was portrayed, as it is in general by its defenders, as a
> doctrine of belief. I think what I found most interesting is that the
> Society of Systematic Biology also seems to think in similar terms. No
> wonder evolution is so poorly understood these days - a situation
> seemingly no better than 30 years ago.
>
> When I get more time I might take a look at the other links provided by
> the Society of Systematic Biology and see if any one else recognized by
> the Society is doing anything better.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> John Grehan
> Director of Science and Collections
> Buffalo Museum of Science
> 1020 Humboldt Parkway
> Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
> Voice 716-896-5200 x372
> Fax 716-897-6723
> jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
>