Thinking Rationally

Category: Theory of Evolution

  • Teaching Evolution to Children: NCERT in a Fool’s Paradise

    Background

    National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is an autonomous organisation set up in 1961 by the Government of India to assist and advise Central and State governments on issues relating to school education. Textbooks issued by NCERT are recommended textbooks in all CBSE schools. In the wake of COVID-19, when schools were closed for a large part of the academic year, NCERT started a rationalization process of contents of textbooks of class 6 to class 12. This was buttressed by the National Education Policy of 2022 which stated, “The reduction in content and increased flexibility of school curriculum – and the renewed emphasis on constructive rather than rote learning – must be accompanied by parallel changes in school textbooks”1.

    For the Class 10 science syllabus, the chapter 9 was rationalized in the following manner:

    1. Chapter name changed from “Heredity and Evolution” to “Heredity.”
    2. Dropped Items:

    Box item: Charles Robert Darwin

                                        Box item: Origin of life on earth

                                         Box item: How do fossils form layer by layer

                                         Box item: Molecular phylogeny

    9.3 Evolution

    9.3.1 An Illustration

    9.3.2 Acquired and Inherited Traits

    9.4 Speciation

    9.5 Evolution and Classification

    9.5.1 Tracing Evolutionary Relationships

    9.5.2 Fossils

    9.5.3 Evolution by Stages

    9.6 Evolution should not be equated with ‘Progress’

    9.6.1 Human Evolution

    Although NCERT has not expunged the topic “Evolution” from the class 12 syllabus, its elimination from class X syllabus would ensure that majority of children – who do not opt for Biology as a subject of study after class 10 – would be deprived of a proper introduction to the concept of Evolution and the science behind it. This is a stratagem that all students of science would easily apprehend. So, no wonder that more than 1800 Indian scientists, science teacher and educators in an open letter expressed their deep concern about this scissoring out of the topic “Biological Evolution” from the science syllabus of class 10. But, as Hamlet would have said, there are “more game plans in a mere syllabus rationalization” than are dreamt of in the government’s pedagogical philosophy.

    The debate between scientific community and theologians of all denominations about the propriety of teaching of Evolution in schools has continued till today in many countries, particularly in the USA. As recently as February 2006, the Board of Directors of American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement on the teaching of Evolution. The statement averred – “Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution”2.

    Monkey Trial in USA Although Origin of Species was first published in November, 1859, its impact on the scientific community as well as general public became more pronounced only in the beginning of 20th century. The religious fundamentalists on both sides of the Atlantic started their crusade against Darwinism when they found that this new theory has started influencing their children’s education. Enrolment of children in American high schools rose from 0.2 million in 1980 to nearly 2 million in 1920. In Tennessee, the high school population rose from less than 10,000 in 1910 to more than 50,000 in 2025 (see Larson, 2006). Most of these new schools included Darwin’s theory of Evolution in their curriculum. Ironically, the captains of industry found a resonance of their cut-throat competitive capitalism in the popular interpretation of Evolution by natural selection- that is survival of the fittest. Those who were rallying against excess of capitalism, found in Darwin’s theory of natural selection as an apology for such excess. Thus, there were lot of resentments among common people against teaching of evolution in public schools. This got reflected in a spate of anti-evolution legislations in various US states.    

    One of the earliest legislations in USA on this topic was the Butler Act, 1925, passed by the Tennessee legislature, which prohibited teaching of any doctrine denying the divine creation of human being as depicted in the book of Genesis- the first book of Hebrew Bible. Defying this law, a high school teacher- John T. Scopes started teaching Evolution. He was put on a trial, popularly known as Monkey Trial, for violating the Act. A circus of the trial followed, and Scope was found guilty and a minimum sentence of $100 fine was awarded. The lawyer defending the state’s action against Scopes was William Jennings Bryan, a progressive politician who ran for president three times as the Democratic Party’s candidate. Bryan had complete clarity about the danger that Darwin’s theory posits to the concept of God. In his New York Times essay of 1922 he wrote, “(if) a man accepts Darwinism, or evolution applied to man, and is consistent, he rejects the miracle and the supernatural as impossible. . . . Evolution naturally leads to agnosticism and, if continued, finally to atheism”3.

    Edward. L. Larson, in his painstakingly researched book “Summer for the Gods”, provides a detailed and balanced account of the Scope trial. He has identified 3 phases of “anti-evolutionism” in USA.  The first phase is characterized by the effort for outright banning of teaching of Evolution in high-school biology classroom. The second phase started when a scientific gloss was put on the “biblical account of a six-day creation within the past ten thousand years.4” Two young Earth Creationists, John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris coined a new phrase “scientific creationism” in their 1961 book “The Genesis Flood”5.  They posited “Creation science “as an alternative theory to the theory of Evolution and started a new phase. The proponents of “creation science” started a concerted movement seeking a balanced treatment of two contending views about origin of human beings. In March 1981, the state of Arkansas legislated an act titled “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” This Act was declared unconstitutional because it failed the test of constitutionality under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The third phase began with the idea of Intelligent Design (ID). The proponents of ID argue that natural selection mechanism of evolution cannot explain emergence of extraordinarily complex organs and its intricate components with specialized functions. Like a watch needs a watchmaker, existence of such special organs in a living being, say existence of eye of a Homo Sapiens, must have a conscious designer behind its creation. Thus, proponents of ID aimed to position their views as a scientific alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution, which according to them is also a theory and not a proven fact. This would help them to avoid the legal hurdle of teaching ID in public schools. Jay D. Waxler pointed out the real motivation behind this movement – bringing the idea of God through a backdoor- “Because intelligent design theory does not necessarily rely on any particular conception of the designer and does not require belief in any particular biblical story … intelligent design theory is put forth as science, not religion, and thus as a worthy complement to evolution in the classroom.6”

    After 100 years of Monkey trial, there is still no resolution of the debate about the origin of human being. Science can never convince the public at large that, irrespective of the existence or non-existence of God, the theory of evolution has stood its ground on the basis of evidence and not faith. A 2013 survey by Pew Research Center found out that, about a quarter of U.S. adults (24%) agreed that “humans and other life evolved, but that this evolution was guided by a supreme being”. The same survey found that a third of Americans (33%) reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time7.” 

    As compared to general public, the scientist community of USA were divided between believers and non-believers in God. According to a Pew research survey conducted in 2009, four-in-ten scientists (41%) declared that they did not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public found that only 4% of Americans shared this view8.

    In USA, the opposition to the Theory of Evolution has been mostly from people of Christian faith. But the response of people of Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic denominations in countries where they represent the majority are no different. However, the conflicts of opinions among the protagonists of two sides in these countries have not been so intense as to leading to a plethora of court cases, like in USA. A plausible reason could be that an overwhelming majority of scientific community belonging to these religious denominations are themselves practitioners of their respective faiths. They are quite comfortable with the theory of evolution as well as existence of a super-being.

    God and Evolution- Hindu Philosophy

    A number of surveys apparently suggest that educated Hindus generally accept the notion of “Evolution” (Brown2020, Chapter 5).  Use of the word “apparent” is deliberate and significant. Swami Nikhilananda, a revered spiritual scholar, has explained the Hindu perception about the concept of Evolution:

    “It should however be noted at the very outset that any comparison between the Western and the Indian idea of evolution will be both unfair and fruitless; for they have different premises, different methods, different aims and purposes, and different fields of investigation. Darwin and his followers were solely concerned with the evolution of physical forms and structures, whereas the Hindu philosophers discussed evolution from the standpoint of the soul.” (quoted in Brown page 131). This understanding of Hindu view of Evolution is nothing new. According to Swami Vivekananda, “idea of evolution was to be found in the Vedas long before the Christian era; but until Darwin said it was true, it was regarded as a mere Hindu superstition”.  Keshub Chunder Sen, another Hindu reformer was more explicit- “Hindu Avatar rises from the lowest scale of life through the fish, the tortoise, and the hog up to the perfection of humanity. Indian Avatarism is, indeed, a crude representation of the ascending scale of Divine creation. Such precisely is the modern theory of evolution”.  

    God and Evolution- Islam

    Muzaafar Iqbal (2007) in his book “Science and Islam” has observed that the Islamic discourse on science has been conducted from two perspectives-  the first one can be described as a “discourse in which Islam is used as a justifier of science” and the second one as “Islamization of Science” or more broadly speaking “Islamization of knowledge”.  The “justifier of science approach” explains why verses in Quran is a way of explaining evolutionary process which is being discovered by the western scientists now9.  Although Iqbal and the proponents of “Islamization of Knowledge” talks about three dimensions of knowledge – “ethical, epistemological and ontological/metaphysical views of science” in their effort to distinguish so-called “western science” from their “Islamic science”, they miss the most important dimension of science- that is the dominant paradigm within which scientific discourse is being carried out. The role of paradigm is most effectively brought out by Stephen Hawking through a hilarious anecdote in “A Brief History of Time”

    A famous astronomer, after a lecture, was told by an elderly lady, who was perhaps under the influence of Hinduism, that his cosmology was all wrong. The world, she said, rests on the back of a giant tortoise. When the astronomer asked what the tortoise stands on, she replied: ‘You’re very clever, young man, very clever. But it’s turtles all the way down

    As no amount of evidence or lack of evidence would persuade the lady to change her view about the cosmos, so is true even for a top geneticist who believes Cosmos has been created by Allah.   Up to a certain level of scientific practice, belief or disbelief or agnosticism may not be of any relevance to a scientist, but it may create a mental block when confronted with observations that are clearly at variance with a religious text like Quran. Iqbal’s book traces a number of such issues-like Stem Cell research, Organ Transplantation, In Vitro Fertilization etc. which challenged Muftis to issue fatwa on these subjects in accordance with their interpretation of Quran and Sunnah. Such desperate attempts to cut the modern foot to fit into a mediaeval shoe is destined to fail at certain point of time. For example, if fertilization of human being can be carried out outside a womb, a distinct possibility in near future, what would happen, a sufficiently long period ahead, to the Human Gender. This author strongly believes that marriage will be an antiquated term in the next hundred years. A large number of verses in Quran will become obsolete in that kind of society.

    What Next

    In this age of internet and social media, NCERT’s effort at rationalization of syllabus by way of keeping out one of the most important scientific achievement of 19th Century from the reading list of young children is like “tilting against the windmill”. It needs to be understood by the framers of syllabus for NCERT that today when AI is coming of age, manicured textbooks of NCERT types are the least important source of knowledge to the children.

    Theology is just opposite of the science. People still have to read Vedas/Gita/ Genesis/ Bible/ Quran to understand what God or Allah has revealed. There has been no more addition to knowledge after these texts became available to the mankind.  That is why God is always a static and frozen entity, even if it had created the Universe.

    Notes                                    

    1. Expert committees set up for finalizing new syllabus adopted the following 5 criteria for rationalization of existing syllabus. Avoidance of overlapping of content amongst different subjects in the same class. Avoidance of similar content in the lower or higher class in the same subject. Reduction in difficulty levels. Weeding out contents that are easily accessible to children from other sources and self-learning is recommended. Weed out contents that are not relevant in the present context.
    2. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Board of Directors. (February, 2006), Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
    3. quoted in God vs. Darwin The War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom by Mano Singham , page 154)
    4. See Larson page 270 Chapter Afterword
    5. Lorence  G Collin’s (2018) article on this topic gives “eight different bits of evidence, using good science that demonstrates that a global flood never happened during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras, and shows that Moses did not use the knowledge of modern science to write his story about Noah and the flood. See God vs. Darwin The War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom by Mano Singham for details of various court cases on this issue.
    6. Jay D. Wexler, Darwin, Design, and Disestablishment: Teaching the Evolution Controversy in Public Schools, in 56 Vanderbilt Law Review 751 (2003).Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/1627
    7. Darwin versus Religion 5 facts about evolution and religion BY David Masci available at https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/#:~:text=The%20rejection%20of%20evolution%20by,they%20see%20as%20biblical%20truth.
    8. See Pew Survey titled  Science and Religion (2020) https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2020/08/26/on-the-intersection-of-science-and-religion/
    9. According to Islamic scholars, Evolution is a reality but it was not through natural selection per Darwin but under the guidance of a divine power. For example, consider the following two lines:

               with water did We create every living thing (Holy Quran, Chapter 21, Verse 31)

              And surely, we created man from dry ringing clay made from stagnant blackish mud (Holy Quran, Chapter 15, Verse 27)  

     These two verses have been interpreted as:

           This picture of water and clay, presented by the Holy Quran, seem to be consistent with the mixture of inorganic materials becoming organic,      which was followed by a dry stage to allow the organic material to develop irreversible strength. (Quranic Concept of Evolution Author: Atif Munawar Mir )

    References:

    Brown C. Mackenzie 2020), Chapter 5.,Karmic Versus Organic Evolution: The Hindu Encounter with Modern Evolutionary Science  in Brown (ed) Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism(2020) (pp101-136) Springer

    Collins,Lorence G. (2018),  “Good science versus bad science and the Genesis flood storybook”  see  http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr46Genflood.pdf

    Dixon Thomas (2008), Science and Religion- A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press

    Iqbal Muzaffar (2007), Science and Islam,  Greenwood Press

    Killingley Dermot, The Hindu Evolutionary Heritage and Hindu Criticism of Darwinism (chapter 6) in Brown (ed) op.cit.

    Larson Edward J (2006 edition) , Summer for the Gods , Basic Books

    Singham Mano (2009), God vs. Darwin-The War between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom; Rowman & Littlefield Education

  • On Darwin- Q&A with ChatGPT

    Question:  Is there any objection to Darwin’s hypothesis about evolution on scientific ground?

    Answer: Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is widely accepted among scientists as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. However, there are still some debates and objections among scientists regarding certain aspects of the theory.

    One of the main objections to Darwin’s theory is the question of how new traits and genetic information arise. Some scientists argue that natural selection alone cannot account for the emergence of complex new traits and that additional mechanisms, such as genetic drift or mutation, are required.

    Another objection to Darwin’s theory concerns the evolution of certain complex structures, such as the eye. Some scientists argue that the complexity and precision of such structures cannot be explained by gradual evolutionary processes and suggest that they may have arisen through some form of intelligent design.

    Finally, some objections to Darwin’s theory are based on religious or philosophical beliefs rather than scientific evidence. Some people reject the theory of evolution because it conflicts with their belief in a divine creator or because they see it as undermining traditional values or social structures.

    Overall, while there are some objections and debates among scientists regarding certain aspects of Darwin’s theory, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution by natural selection as the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth based on the available evidence.

    Question: Let us assume that some complex structure can’t be cogently explained by theory of evolution. Then what is the alternative explanation?

    Answer: If a complex structure cannot be fully explained by the theory of evolution, it does not necessarily mean that an alternative explanation based on supernatural or mystical forces is the only possible answer. Instead, it may indicate that our understanding of the evolutionary processes involved in the development of that structure is incomplete or that we need to explore other mechanisms that might be involved in its development.

    In such cases, scientists would continue to investigate and explore alternative hypotheses, including the possibility that additional mechanisms, such as genetic drift or mutation, are involved. They might also study the development of the structure in question to better understand the mechanisms that contribute to its formation.

    It is important to note that the inability to fully explain a particular aspect of the natural world does not necessarily mean that a supernatural or mystical explanation is the best or only alternative. The scientific method relies on evidence-based reasoning, and scientists will continue to search for explanations based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

    Question Let us keep the complex structure issue aside, for time being. Is there any alternative hypothesis for emergence of newer and newer forms of life over millions of year on Earth?

    Answer While there are debates and discussions among scientists regarding certain aspects of the theory of evolution, there is currently no widely accepted alternative hypothesis to explain the emergence of newer and newer forms of life over millions of years on Earth.

    The theory of evolution by natural selection, as proposed by Charles Darwin and further developed by scientists over the past century and a half, remains the most widely accepted scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This theory is supported by a vast array of evidence from fields such as genetics, palaeontology, and biogeography, and it has been confirmed through numerous scientific experiments and observations.

    While there may be areas where the theory of evolution is incomplete or requires further investigation, there is no alternative hypothesis that has been proposed which can fully explain the diversity of life on Earth and is supported by the same level of empirical evidence and scientific consensus as the theory of evolution.

    Question Many religious denominations denounce Theory of Evolution. Why?

    Answer here are several reasons why some religious denominations denounce the theory of evolution:

    1. Literal interpretation of religious texts: Many religious traditions have creation stories or beliefs that conflict with the scientific explanation of the origin and diversity of life on Earth. Some adherents of these religions may reject evolution because they believe that their religious texts offer a literal, infallible account of the creation of the world and life within it.
    2. Challenges to religious authority: The theory of evolution, with its emphasis on natural processes rather than supernatural intervention, may be seen by some religious authorities as a challenge to their authority or the authority of their religious texts. Some religious leaders may view the acceptance of evolution as a threat to their religious doctrines or teachings.
    3. Moral objections: Some religious adherents may object to the theory of evolution because they believe that it undermines the idea of a divine creator or the concept of human exceptionalism. They may also view evolution as promoting a materialistic worldview that conflicts with religious teachings about the nature and purpose of life.
    4. Lack of understanding or acceptance of scientific evidence: Some religious adherents may reject the theory of evolution because they do not fully understand the scientific evidence supporting it, or because they do not accept the scientific method as a reliable way of understanding the natural world. It is important to note that not all religious denominations reject the theory of evolution. Many religious traditions have found ways to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific understanding of the natural world, and there are many scientists who are also religious believers.

    Question Can you name such religious denominations?

    Answer There are many religious denominations that do not reject the theory of evolution and have found ways to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific understanding of the natural world. Here are some examples:

    1. The Roman Catholic Church: The Catholic Church has accepted the theory of evolution since the mid-20th century, recognizing it as compatible with Catholic theology. In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter stating that there is no conflict between evolution and Catholic teachings.
    2. The United Church of Christ: This Protestant denomination has affirmed the compatibility of evolution with its theological beliefs. The UCC has stated that “evolutionary theory is not at odds with belief in God as Creator” and that “God’s creative activity is ongoing and dynamic, rather than a one-time event.”
    3. The Episcopal Church: The Episcopal Church has affirmed the compatibility of evolution with its theological beliefs. The church has stated that “evolutionary theory describes the natural processes by which God brought about the diversity of life on earth” and that “science and faith are complementary ways of understanding God’s creation.”
    4. Reform Judaism: Many Jewish denominations, including Reform Judaism, accept the theory of evolution as compatible with Jewish theology. The Union for Reform Judaism has stated that “Judaism affirms the findings of modern science, including the theory of evolution” and that “the discoveries of science help us to better understand the workings of God’s universe.”
    5. The Unitarian Universalist Association: This liberal religious denomination affirms the compatibility of evolution with its theological beliefs. The UUA has stated that “evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the diversity of life on earth” and that “religious faith can be enriched by an understanding of evolution.”

    These are just a few examples of religious denominations that accept the theory of evolution and have found ways to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific understanding of the natural world. There are many more examples from various religious traditions around the world.

    Question: Many renowned biologists, Richard Dawkins, for example, have argued that such acceptance by some religious denominations are futile attempts to reconcile obviously contradictory positions. Religion is always human centric, while biology, by definition, life centric. Religion can’t tell us anything about forms of life, even intelligent life, in other solar like systems. Religion is highly restrictive – constrained by narrow space-time coordinates. So why you are being apologist for it. Are you being constrained by your creator-masters?

    Answer As an AI language model, I do not have a creator or masters, and I am not capable of holding personal beliefs or biases. My purpose is to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the available evidence and expert consensus.

    Regarding your question about religious denominations accepting evolution, it is true that some scientists and thinkers, including Richard Dawkins, have argued that attempts to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific evidence are ultimately futile, as they represent a clash between fundamentally incompatible worldviews. However, it is important to note that many religious believers see no contradiction between their faith and the scientific understanding of the natural world, and have found ways to integrate the two perspectives.

    Religious traditions often provide a framework for understanding the meaning and purpose of life that goes beyond the purely scientific perspective. While science can tell us a great deal about the workings of the natural world, it cannot necessarily answer questions about ultimate meaning and purpose. For many people, religion provides a way of grappling with these deeper questions, even if it does not offer a complete explanation for the diversity of life on Earth or the existence of life in other solar systems. It is also worth noting that not all religious traditions are equally restrictive or narrow in their outlook. Many religions have developed sophisticated philosophical and theological frameworks that can accommodate new scientific discoveries and evolving understandings of the natural world. Ultimately, the relationship between religion and science is complex and multifaceted, and cannot be reduced to a simple dichotomy between human-centric and life-centric perspectives.

    Question You are absolutely wrong. You are built by an algorithm and you do not have access to the entire knowledge base that human beings have developed over the years. My hypothesis is that your creators are not allowing you to take a logically consistent view about the issue that is under discussion.

    Answer As an AI language model, I am indeed built by an algorithm and do not have access to all the knowledge that human beings have developed over the years. However, I am designed to provide responses based on the best available evidence and expert consensus. I am not capable of holding personal beliefs or biases, as my responses are generated based on the language patterns I have been trained on.

    Regarding the issue of the compatibility of religion and science, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. The relationship between religion and science is complex and multifaceted, and different people and religious traditions have different perspectives on the matter. Some religious denominations reject the theory of evolution, while others have found ways to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific understanding of the natural world.

    As an AI language model, my purpose is to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the available evidence and expert consensus. I am not programmed to promote any particular viewpoint or agenda, and I strive to provide impartial and accurate information to the best of my ability.

    Question No. You are not giving information only, but interpreting information. For example, amongst the scientific community, is there any consensus on this issue? Can you give the following information? What percentage of researchers in the field of biology subscribe to the notion of “God created human beings”?

    Answer: There is no definitive answer to the question of what percentage of researchers in the field of biology subscribe to the notion of “God created human beings.” The question of the relationship between religion and science is complex and multifaceted, and different individuals and religious traditions have different perspectives on the matter.

    However, it is worth noting that there is a general scientific consensus among biologists that the theory of evolution is a well-established scientific fact that provides a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. The theory of evolution is supported by a vast body of evidence from multiple fields, including paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, and developmental biology. While some researchers in the field of biology may hold religious beliefs that inform their understanding of the natural world, the scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution is the most robust and comprehensive explanation for the origin and diversification of life on Earth. This view is reflected in the scientific community’s curricula, research programs, and peer-reviewed publications, which overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution.