Today, in educational institutions, students are not required to study evolution; The subject is offered in the biology curriculum as an optional chapter only. Why does the idea of evolution arouse such strong opposition?
By Dr. Assaf Marom, Galileo Magazine
In the last election campaign, the question of the place of evolution in the teaching of biology to Israeli students hit the headlines ("Haaretz's Scientific Questionnaire", Oded Carmeli, "Haaretz", 18.2.15). Indeed, out of 11 party representatives, they responded to a questionnaire that included the simple question "What is your position regarding evolution studies in schools in Israel?" Only seven, but their answers are thought provoking. The leaders of the religious parties provided firm and predictable answers: "Our ancestors were Adam and Eve... We refuse to educate our children that they come from monkeys" (Aryeh Deri) or "It should not be taught" (Eli Yishai), and dealing with these types of answers is a matter for another article. In my view, the appropriate answer to the question was given by Ayman Odeh, the chairman of the joint list: "I support the teaching of the theory of evolution as the theoretical basis accepted by science today for the development of the diversity of biological species on the planet." The tension involved in the question is revealed precisely in the answers of others. Rabbi Zehava Galon expressed support for the teaching of evolution, adding "We do not see a contradiction between the studies of evolution and the teaching The Bible or other Jewish studies with a pluralistic and open approach." The matter of pluralism was also a main reason in the words of the other representatives: Yitzhak Herzog ("The Israeli education system under us will be as pluralistic and diverse as possible"), Moshe Kahlon ("We believe that different approaches should be taught in schools"), and representative of the "Yesh Atid" party Yaakov Perry , who also served as Minister of Science, Technology and Space ("I am in favor of broadening horizons and studying human history from other angles as well"). In the latter's answer there is another reasoning, according to which the teaching of evolution is intended to broaden the students' horizons (I will return to this later). The argued debate is not unique to Israel, but worldwide. It is also not new, and in fact broke out with the publication of the revolutionary idea about the evolution of the animal world by Charles Darwin in 1856.
The animal world does not stay the same, but gradually changes. That is, today's animal world is not the same as the animal world a million years ago, and it is not the same as the animal world two million years ago. This is a fact, not a hypothesis or a scientific theory. This is a fact that anyone who observes the living world, as Darwin did, will easily prove it. This is a fact that requires an explanation, and Darwin provided it by describing the mechanism of gradual change - "natural selection". In his greatness, Darwin in an enviable way solved the ancient riddle "What came before what, the chicken or the egg?"; His answer was that not only does the egg precede the chicken, but that the chicken is nothing more than an egg's sophisticated way of producing another egg, in the words of the English biologist Richard Dawkins. Today, when we know that an egg is a cell that contains genetic material (DNA), Dawkins' words can perhaps be phrased like this: however sophisticated it may be, the chicken is nothing more than the sophisticated way of one DNA sequence to create copies of this DNA sequence. Darwin was the one who realized that within a population of chickens, the hen that is more resistant in dealing with environmental factors and in the fight for food sources (for example) - has a chance greater than the latter to survive, and more importantly - it has a greater chance of bringing another egg into the world. By its very survival, this egg is equipped with the ability to create a more sophisticated hen, while the less sophisticated hens do not produce an egg at all. The word "sophisticated" raises a fundamental problem here: There is a hint in it, apparently, that the evolutionary process has a direction and purpose to create a (certain) "sophisticated" chicken Of course, the chicken is perfected by chance; its evolution (compared to others in the population) is the result of the natural variation that characterizes the population. This is because the evolutionary process is aimless and purposeless Its purpose is to bring about the perfection of the creatures in the sense that they "become better" or "more successful", in an absolute sense. Indeed, the solutions offered by nature are so elaborate that some see them as evidence of the act of creation, since otherwise how can the secret of their existence be explained? Well, Darwin also answered this question: the secret is that there is no secret.
Origin of Species
The process of evolution, or the gradual process by which these changes occur, existed even before Darwin published his book on the origin of species, just as the law of gravitation existed even before Newton described it in his treatise on "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". The change of biological species throughout the history of the world is a proven fact, and evolution is not "one of the approaches" to explain the enormous variety of species on the planet, however sophisticated they may be - but a proven fact. Evolution provides a unified and fundamental explanation for all the branches of biology, and is supported by an outpouring of evidence not only from the world of fossils and geology but also from the fields of anatomy (and comparative anatomy), biochemistry, heredity, developmental biology, zoology and botany. The opponents of evolution publish their writings frequently and work magic on certain publics with their recycled claims, mainly due to the fact that that public does not have the tools or the knowledge to evaluate and criticize their claims. However, the purpose of this article is not to deal with the opponents of evolution within the framework of the old polemic; I will not examine spectacular examples from the animal world here in order to convince undecided readers about the existence of the evolution process. Such examples abound and are available to any reader of popular science books. The problem is that they appear too little (if at all) in biology textbooks within the framework of primary and secondary education. The theory of evolution is astonishingly simple and clear, mainly due to the fact that there is nothing in it that contradicts common sense. In my meetings with middle school students and even elementary school classes (as part of science lessons), I saw that they were able to easily understand its principles. If so, why does the idea of evolution arouse such strong opposition? What "danger" lurks for the students according to the opponents of its inclusion in school curricula? And what are the consequences of the encounter between evolution and man?
The controversy over the idea of evolution and the resistance to teaching it in schools is complex, and its roots are deeply rooted in approaches to science, religion and education. The subject has occupied science and literature for decades, and has reached the walls of the court more than once. In 1961, the writer and theologian John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, a doctor of civil engineering in the United States, published the book "The Genesis Flood", in which they laid the foundations for the modern creationist movement based on evidence from the Bible. According to the creationists , the universe, the earth and the life on it are the work of God, and were created only a few thousand years ago, in accordance with what is written in the Bible. During the 70s, the movement grew stronger and gathered many supporters, thanks in part to the publication of the book "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!", written in 1973 by the American biochemist Dwayne Gish. In the period after the well-publicized "Monkey Trial" (1925), in which a lawsuit was filed against a biology teacher for the fact that he taught evolution in his class, it was no longer possible to ban the teaching of evolution in schools. Following the "Apes trial", the creationists faced a new problem - and that is how to enforce the teaching of the idea of creation as part of the teaching of biology. This is how the alleged scientific creationist alternative to evolution was invented: "creation science" which is supposedly based only on scientific evidence, without connection to the Bible, but which happens to support its findings with the theory that the earth is young, that the living world was created in several days (the last of which man was created) , and also that some time later a flood occurred.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
