Chronobiologist Bora Zivkovic, who is the online community manager for the Public Library of Science (PLoS), had some interesting things to say about the teaching of evolution. Zivkovic recognizes that teaching evolutionary theory to those who have religious objections to it can be difficult. Zivkovic also recognizes that some of the “proofs” for evolution are not accurate. Is he advocating that those proofs be abandoned? Not at all. So long as they are useful in converting creationists to the cause of evolution, he is all for it:
You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA [Non-Overlapping Magasterium, which means science and religion are in two entirely different spheres of thought that have no bearing on one another] is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. If a student…goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?
It’s scary to realize that some evolutionists are so intent on spreading their scientific dogma, that they are willing to deceive their students to accomplish their goal. ‘Tell them whatever you need to tell them so they’ll join us,’ appears to be the motto. Very sad.
Thinking to Believe 
August 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Zivkovic’s position is…pretty odd, I have to say. I don’t agree with it, and I’m about as hardcore an ‘evolutionist’ as they come. While I’m all for helping people out of the intellectual cess pit that is Creationism, I can’t advocate lying to students except in those inevitable cases where explanations must be made more simple to accomodate the age/level of the student (see, for example, almost any high school textbook, on any subject).
With regard to the Haeckal embry drawings specifically, they’re not as big a deal as a lot of Creationists seem to think. Haeckal’s idea was that organism actually move through their evolutionary ‘stages’ as they develop, so that a bird will actually have reptilian features at certain stages of development before losing them. This is not the case, and the hypothesis is now discredited. Hackal’s drawings are useful for demonstrating comparitive embryology, however, which is another kettle of fish entirely and has nothing to do with what he was trying to use the drawings to demonstrate.
Still, using Hackal’s drawings as simplified explanatory tools aren’t what Zivkovic is advocating, and I doubt many people would agree with her on this one. Of course, the Discovery Institute completely mangles the story (dying paradigm? In Ken Ham’s dreams, maybe…) as well as the pages ‘exposing’ Haeckal’s drawings. Fail, as usual.
LikeLike
August 27, 2008 at 4:22 pm
[…] 27, 2008 I recently came across this post, which covers a story run by (sigh) the Discovery Institute, through their hilarious website, […]
LikeLike
August 28, 2008 at 10:57 am
Jason,
Have you ever heard a Christian apologist claim that an apparent Biblical contradiction is explainable as a “translation issue from Hebrew/Greek to English,” when the issue actually has nothing to do with the translation? When the apologist really has no understanding of the apparent contradiction, and is simply pulling something out of his arsenal to satisfy the simple-minded questioner?
Does it really matter whether the questioner fully understands the minutiae, or is it enough that the person understands the Gospel and that the Bible is true and reliable?
Arthur
LikeLike
August 28, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Forknowledge,
I’m glad you think Zivkovic is wrong on this. I’d venture to say 99% of evolutionists would agree. It’s the 1% that scares me.
There is a difference between simplifying the way we communicate some truth (in such a way that the simplification is accurate, but not entirely), and using as evidence for some viewpoint, something one knows to be no evidence at all.
Jason
LikeLike
August 28, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Arthur,
You would have to be specific, but I’m sure this probably happens. But suggesting an explanation that may or may not be plausible, and presenting as evidence something one knows is not evidence, are two entirely different things. In the former case one is looking for a way to explain some set of difficult data, and thinks their explanation is plausible (even if they are mistaken). In the latter case, one is purposely deceiving.
Jason
LikeLike
August 29, 2008 at 4:51 am
Hmmmm…sounds like religion.
I agree with Jason about the 1%. And even the other 99% don’t seem to eager to correct the 1% who are really super-zealous.
Chad
LikeLike
August 29, 2008 at 10:04 am
Chad,
Well, at least in this particular case there were some in the 99% camp who were speaking out against Zivkovic (even the radical, P.Z. Meyers). Even forknowledge gave him the thumbs down.
Jason
LikeLike
September 11, 2008 at 11:16 am
I am old and female, but I have a strong opinion about this. To send a child to college is an expensive, scary thing. Many professors believe it is their duty to teach that the US is guilty for so many things, we need to view ourselves as evil and aggressive. But many profs also want their students to believe that the bible is filled with myth and if the student believes otherwise, he or she are mentally immature. Do parents know what these classes are like? Yes, I know this first hand, I was fifty before I got my masters. The only B I made was in Philosophy. My test grades were always high, but I gave my opionion too often evidently the wrong one.
LikeLike
September 11, 2008 at 11:56 am
This is true. That’s why we need to prepare Christian students before they go to college. Non-stop pizza parties and pep rallies won’t cut it. They need some hard hitting apologetics and theological training.
LikeLike