Truth in Science

The world’s leading science journal has today published an article 'Science teaching must evolve' that agrees with several of Truth in Science’s criticisms of current school science teaching on evolution. It calls on educators to retreat from the use of several forms of evidence critiqued by Truth in Science, and concentrate instead on DNA evidence of molecular evolution.

For over a year, Truth in Science has criticised the widespread use of similarities in form as evidence for evolution. Today, Nature writes: “Phylogeny based on similarity of form is fundamentally unsound because of the adaptation and convergent evolution witnessed in nature.” This statement is more outspoken and controversial than Truth in Science’s mildly-worded criticisms, but we are glad that Nature is now in basic agreement with us.

Since September 2006, Truth in Science has argued that theories for the origin of life taught in schools are flawed. Today, Nature writes: “Speculations on the chemical origins of life are almost universally covered in school curricula under ‘Evolution’, despite the questionable relevance of the topic for evolution, and its rather uncertain scientific basis...it is far from sound evolutionary theory.” Again, we are pleased that we now agree with the prestigious British journal on this point.

Nature even criticises teaching based on the fossil record (covered by Truth in Science here), writing: “Worse still, the understanding they [pupils] have — based on the fossil record — is easy prey to specious arguments from anti-science movements.” The fossil record is apparently now seen as vulnerable evidence. At Truth in Science we reject specious arguments by anti-science movements, but we do hold there to be valid scientific criticisms of the fossil evidence that is claimed for the theories of natural selection and universal common ancestry.

The Nature article, written by Andrew Moore of the Science & Society Programme at the European Molecular Biology Organization, suggests that many teachers have trouble with basic concepts in molecular evolution. It argues that teachers need to be re-educated: “many teachers are not scientifically capable of teaching evolution using modern approaches”, it claims.

While Truth in Science welcomes the fact that some of its criticisms of the evidence for evolution are being heard, it seems that a simple desire for truthfulness is not the only motivation felt by Dr Moore. He holds that trust in Darwin is a very serious issue. After discussing the need for molecular biology education early in biology teaching, he writes: “There is something more serious at stake: the erosion of public trust in Darwin’s original theory of evolution by natural selection in the face of ‘alternative theories’ from the Intelligent Design movement”.

We hope that Nature’s article will result give new momentum to the removal of misleading evidence for evolution from British schools, and look forward to analysing new resources on molecular evolution.