DOCSLIB.ORG

Haeckel's Embryos

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Haeckel's Embryos Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education HAECKEL’S EMBRYOS to be central to our understanding of evolution. Comparative embryology shows how different ERNST HAECKEL AND adult structures of many animals have the COMPARATIVE EMBRYOLOGY same embryonic precursors. These shared rnst Haeckel (1834–1919) is both a hero developmental features suggest that many ani- and a villain in the biological communi- mals have ancestors in common. Further com- Ety. He was a prominent figure in the late parative embryology shows that closely relat- nineteenth-century comparative anatomy com- ed animals show a unity of developmental pat- munity and is famous for his phylogenetic tern, particularly in earlier stages, and have trees, anatomical illustrations, support for evo- more developmental features in common than lution, and strong personality. He is perhaps as do more distantly related organisms. The fact well known, and considerably misunderstood, that certain incipient structures such as pha- for his studies in embryology and his dictum ryngeal pouches or arches exist in all verte- that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” brate embryos yet develop into very different called the Biogenetic Law. Haeckel espoused adult structures suggests that they all share a the view that evolution generally proceeds by common ancestor whose embryo had pharyn- placing each innovation on top of a previous geal pouches (at least at some stage in devel- opment). In this way, developmental similari- one, like adding layers on a cake. Therefore, ties that are inherited from a common ancestor the embryo of an “advanced” organism should are homologous, just like the patterns of bones pass through (“recapitulate”) the adult stages in adult limbs. of more “primitive” forms as it develops. However, repeated observations of develop- DEVELOPING AN ARGUMENT ment by other workers (e.g., Wilhelm His, ells’s entire chapter on embryology Walter Garstang, Wilhelm Roux, Adam amounts to little more than a mis- Sedgwick, Gavin de Beer, and others; see Wreading of Darwin, Haeckel, and Gilbert, 1991, or Gould, 1977 for a detailed others, combined with a general failure to history) clearly showed that embryos do not go acknowledge recent work on Haeckel and his through adult stages of lower forms; rather, embryos by Gould, Richardson, and others. In they share many common features in develop- it, he conflates ideas in history of developmen- ment. No biologist has accepted the biogenetic tal biology with ideas of contemporary devel- law for many decades and it may have been a opmental biology. He also fails to recognize caricature of Haeckel’s actual views anyway. close to 60 years of work in developmental Much of Haeckel’s developmental work is biology and thus completely omits any discus- now considered invalid, and some historians of sion of the real developmental evidence for science have provided reasonable evidence to evolution. It almost seems that Wells’s goal is suggest that he manipulated his drawings to fit to discredit the entire field of comparative his preconceived views about development embryology by proxy, employing a bait-and- and evolution. Haeckel’s views about the pro- switch between Haeckel and Darwin. Wells’s gressive nature of evolution are no longer ploy is reminiscent of a child’s false logic accepted. proof. It goes like this: Darwin relied on Regardless of Haeckel’s accuracy or precon- Haeckel, Haeckel was a fraud, therefore ceptions, comparative embryology continues Darwin is a fraud. 29 Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education The charge that Ernst Haeckel intentionally go through the adult stages of their ancestors “faked” his drawings is irrelevant. Regardless — with the idea that shared features of of his intent, the drawings that Haeckel made embryos give insight into their phylogenetic are incorrect, especially in what he labeled as relationships. Failing to distinguish these the “first stage.” But it really does not matter allows Wells to avoid dealing with the actual what Haeckel thought or whether his drawings evidence for shared developmental features in are accurate: modern comparative embryology various embryos and to dismiss the entire field does not stand or fall on the accuracy of as based on an outdated and outright refuted Haeckel any more than modern physics stands claim, one that embryologists know to be false or falls on the accuracy of Kepler or Newton. but cling to anyway because of an ideological Historically, Wells actively ignores the accu- commitment to evolution. Wells should know rate work of many of Haeckel’s predecessors better, as the holder of a Ph.D. in cell and and contemporaries (such as William and developmental biology. Jeffrey Parker, Hans Gadow, Hans Selenka, REWRITING HISTORY FOR Heinrich Rathke, Virgil Leighton, Hugo THE GREATER GLORY OF Schauinsland, and Alfred Voeltzkow, to name THE REV. MOON a few). Haeckel and von Baer were not the only embryologists in nineteenth-century sci- n the introduction to Icons, Wells states ence, but you wouldn’t know that from reading that he first became aware of the problems Wells. Worse, Wells speciously extends his cri- Iin evolutionary theory when he was “fin- tique of Haeckel to the present day. Wells ishing his Ph.D. in cell and developmental implies that textbooks misrepresent the study biology” (Wells, 2000:xi). He claims that he of developmental programs as evidence for knew that the drawings of embryos presented evolution by accusing them of using Haeckel’s in textbooks were false because he was a inaccurate drawings, in effect accusing text- developmental biologist. Shortly thereafter, he books that show any embryos of “mindlessly claims, his observation was confirmed by repeating” Haeckel. The important question is other scientists. Before that seminal event, he whether textbooks, and more importantly says, “I believed almost everything I read in developmental biologists, still rely on my textbooks” (Wells, 2000:xi). This state- Haeckel’s work. The answer is no, but that ment is inconsistent with other claims of doesn’t stop Wells from acting as if they do. Wells’s. According to statements made by Wells sets up a straw man in his bait-and- Wells in a sermon on a Unification Church switch, starting with Darwin’s famous asser- website (http://www.tparents.org/library/unifi- tion that embryology represented the “single cation/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm), he went to strongest class of facts” in favor of his theory. graduate school with the specific intent of Here Wells misrepresents both early embryol- attacking evolution: “Father’s words, my stud- ogy and Darwin’s own words. When quoting ies, and my prayers convinced me that I should both Darwin and other historical figures, he devote my life to destroying Darwinism” and quotes them out of context, leaves out impor- he believed that its weakest point was devel- tant parts of quotes, and even changes the opmental biology. “I was convinced that order of their appearance, all to misrepresent embryology is the Achilles’ heel of their real meaning and intent. Wells also con- Darwinism; one cannot understand how organ- flates “recapitulation” — that is, that embryos isms evolve unless one understands how they 30 Icons of Evolution? Why Much of What Jonathan Wells Writes about Evolution is Wrong Alan D. Gishlick, National Center for Science Education develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D. pro- ed to developmental ones) to generate classifi- gram, this time in biology, at the University of cations for organisms. Darwin is praising the California at Berkeley. While there, I studied application of his theory by Haeckel. embryology and evolution.” So it was not so Although Darwin did not use Haeckel on much a “revelation” as it was a plan. If Wells embryology, he did use von Baer. Recognizing is so revisionist about his own history, how can Darwin’s use of von Baer, Wells then accuses we trust him with the history of science? Darwin of “misusing” von Baer’s work, twist- ing the data to fit his views. But Darwin does DEVELOPMENTAL ANATOMY, not. Wells claims that von Baer’s embryologi- DARWIN, AND EVOLUTION cal laws are incompatible with Darwin’s con- ells opens the chapter by telling us clusions, but they are not. Von Baer may have what Darwin thought about devel- disagreed with Darwin about his conclusions, Wopment and evolution. Wells uses but his laws do not prohibit development elu- about 5 different quotes from the Origin in an cidating common ancestry. Darwin came to a attempt to show that Darwin was advocating different conclusion from the same body of recapitulation in spite of what the data showed. evidence — this is not “distorting” the evi- To do this, he distorts the history. Wells tries to dence. Darwin was making a general inductive connect Darwin to Haeckel so that he can use argument and searched for data that could test that to dismiss Darwin. Wells says that Darwin the general proposition of common descent; he was not an embyrologist and thus he relied on argued that von Baer’s data could be reinter- Haeckel (Wells, 2000:81). Anyone familiar preted in terms of common ancestry. This was with the history of biology knows that this is no more a “misuse” of von Baer than was impossible. Haeckel did not publish his Alfred Wegener’s reinterpretations of the data Anthropogenie until 1874 (where the much- of geology in light of mobile continents. New maligned embryo drawings first appear), 15 scientific theories always use previous data. Is years after the publication of the Origin. (It Wells implying that evolutionary biology can- should also be noted that the drawings referred not cite any research that predates 1859? Is to by Wells [2000] are not from Haeckel but Wells implying that developmental sequences redrawn from the first edition of such as those illustrated by von Baer and oth- Anthropogenie in a textbook by Romanes ers are not data? [1892; see figure 10a].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cumulated Bibliography of Biographies of Ocean Scientists Deborah Day, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Archives Revised December 3, 2001
    Cumulated Bibliography of Biographies of Ocean Scientists Deborah Day, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Archives Revised December 3, 2001. Preface This bibliography attempts to list all substantial autobiographies, biographies, festschrifts and obituaries of prominent oceanographers, marine biologists, fisheries scientists, and other scientists who worked in the marine environment published in journals and books after 1922, the publication date of Herdman’s Founders of Oceanography. The bibliography does not include newspaper obituaries, government documents, or citations to brief entries in general biographical sources. Items are listed alphabetically by author, and then chronologically by date of publication under a legend that includes the full name of the individual, his/her date of birth in European style(day, month in roman numeral, year), followed by his/her place of birth, then his date of death and place of death. Entries are in author-editor style following the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 14th ed., 1993). Citations are annotated to list the language if it is not obvious from the text. Annotations will also indicate if the citation includes a list of the scientist’s papers, if there is a relationship between the author of the citation and the scientist, or if the citation is written for a particular audience. This bibliography of biographies of scientists of the sea is based on Jacqueline Carpine-Lancre’s bibliography of biographies first published annually beginning with issue 4 of the History of Oceanography Newsletter (September 1992). It was supplemented by a bibliography maintained by Eric L. Mills and citations in the biographical files of the Archives of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD.
    [Show full text]
  • Travels on the Backbone Crest (A Group of Embryonic Cells)
    BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT EVOLUTION non-deuterostomes. In the most effective section, he strips vertebrates down to their parts, such as the nerve cord, notochord (fore- runner of the vertebral column) and neural Travels on the backbone crest (a group of embryonic cells). He even delves into the largely ignored gut and viscera. Chris Lowe lauds a study of vertebrate origins that Gee discusses how data from living and brings us up to date with a shifting field. fossilized hemichordates and echinoderms have facilitated the search for the origins of the defining chordate anatomies. He ome of the great remaining mysteries groups belong in the highlights how palaeontological, develop- in zoology concern origins — of multi- deuterostome lineage mental and genomic data now all support cellularity, complex nervous systems, of animals alongside the idea that the common ancestor of chor- Slife cycles and sex, for example. The chordates — have dates, hemichordates and echinoderms had evolutionary origin of vertebrates is among largely been resolved. pharyngeal gill slits for filter feeding. That the most intractable of these, despite more Others are as intrac- gives us a glimpse of the early chordate ances- than a century of work spanning a range of table as ever, including tor, which lived around 600 million years ago. disciplines and animal groups. where to place key fos- Other features, such as a complex brain, prob- In Across the Bridge, Henry Gee reviews sil groups such as the ably emerged much later. Having established the most recent research in this area. Gee curious vetulicolians, Across the Bridge: a hazy picture of the earliest chordates, Gee (the senior editor responsible for palae- which lived during Understanding focuses on building vertebrates and their the Origin of the ontology and evolutionary development the Cambrian period, Vertebrates defining features from the basic chordate at Nature) synthesizes contributions from some 541 million to HENRY GEE body plan, for example through spectacular anatomy, developmental biology, genomics, 485 million years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer
    Evo Edu Outreach DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0109-9 BOOK REVIEW Why Why Darwin Matters Matters Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design, by Michael Shermer. New York: Henry Holt, 2006. Pp. xxii + 199. S/b $14.00 Tania Lombrozo # The Author(s) 2008. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com The first decade of the twenty-first century will be a curious a brief but lucid overview of key evolutionary ideas. He chapter in the future history of evolutionary thought. In emphasizes that the source of resistance to evolution is rarely 2005, resistance to evolution manifested in the highly the scientific details but rather the perceived consequences of publicized trial of Dover, Pennsylvania over teaching evolution: atheism, ethical nihilism, and a lack of meaning. Intelligent Design in public schools. Only four years later, What people care about “is whether teaching evolution will in 2009, universities, museums, and individuals across the make their kids reject God, allow criminals and sinners to globe celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of blame their genes for their actions, and generally cause society Darwin’s Origin of Species. Released in the interlude, to fall apart” (p. 25). But according to Shermer, an even Michael Shermer’s Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against greater threat to the theory of evolution is misunderstanding. Intelligent Design takes on the challenge these landmark A large proportion of the public not only misunderstands dates represent: how a thoroughly vetted and accepted evolutionary theory but also aspects of science and the scientific theory can be the source of so much cultural scientific process—for example, that calling evolution a conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • FAU Institutional Repository
    FAU Institutional Repository http://purl.fcla.edu/fau/fauir This paper was submitted by the faculty of FAU’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. Notice: ©1999 Academic Press. This manuscript is an author version with the final publication available and may be cited as: Young, C. M. (1999). Marine invertebrate larvae. In E. Knobil & J. D. Neill (eds.), Encyclopedia of Reproduction, 3. (pp. 89-97). London, England, and San Diego, CA: Academic Press. --------1111------- Marine Invertebrate Larvae Craig M. Young Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution 1. What Is a Larva? metamorphOSiS Morphological and physiological changes II. The Production of Larvae that occur during the transition from the larval phase to iII. Larval forms and Diversity the juvenile phase: often coincides with settlement in ben­ IV. Larval Feeding and Nutrition thic species. V. Larval Orientation, Locomotion, Dispersal, and mixed development A developmental mode that includes a Mortality brooded or encapsulated embryonic stage as well as a free­ VI. Larval Settlement and Metamorphosis swimming larval stage. VlI. Ecological and Evolutionary Significance of Larvae planktotrophic larva A feeding larva that obtains at least part VlIl. Economic and Medical Importance of Larvae of its nutritional needs from either particulate or dissolved exogenous sources. Planktotrophic larvae generally hatch from small, transparent eggs. GLOSSARY settlement The permanent transition of a larva from the plankton to the benthos. In sessile organisms, settlement atrochal larva A uniformly ciliated larva (cilia not arranged is marked by adhesion to the substratum. It is often closely in distinct bands). associated with metamorphosis and may involve habitat se­ competent larva A larva that is physiologically and morpho­ lection.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution a Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused by Dr
    Ten Misunderstandings About Evolution A Very Brief Guide for the Curious and the Confused By Dr. Mike Webster, Dept. of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University ([email protected]); February 2010 The current debate over evolution and “intelligent design” (ID) is being driven by a relatively small group of individuals who object to the theory of evolution for religious reasons. The debate is fueled, though, by misunderstandings on the part of the American public about what evolutionary biology is and what it says. These misunderstandings are exploited by proponents of ID, intentionally or not, and are often echoed in the media. In this booklet I briefly outline and explain 10 of the most common (and serious) misunderstandings. It is impossible to treat each point thoroughly in this limited space; I encourage you to read further on these topics and also by visiting the websites given on the resource sheet. In addition, I am happy to send a somewhat expanded version of this booklet to anybody who is interested – just send me an email to ask for one! What are the misunderstandings? 1. Evolution is progressive improvement of species Evolution, particularly human evolution, is often pictured in textbooks as a string of organisms marching in single file from “simple” organisms (usually a single celled organism or a monkey) on one side of the page and advancing to “complex” organisms on the opposite side of the page (almost invariably a human being). We have all seen this enduring image and likely have some version of it burned into our brains.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "Critical Analysis of Evolution"; Innovative Lesson Plan Or
    THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION L10H23 “CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EVOLUTION”; INNOVATIVE LESSON PLAN OR STEALTHY ADVOCACY TOOL? Robert Day, The Ohio State University. Presented at the National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching (NARST) annual conference, San Francisco, CA. April 2006. Abstract: This paper will discuss the ongoing controversy surrounding a particular Ohio Department of Education tenth grade lesson plan titled “Critical Analysis of Evolution” (Ohio Department of Education identification L10H23). The lesson professes to encourage students to “critically examine” evidences for and against evolution and invites them to discuss definitions of some common evolutionary terms and concepts. Proponents insist that this lesson is a thought-provoking exercise in critical thinking and scientific objectively. Critics claim that the lesson is at best, unscientific and at worst, a thinly-veiled attempt to introduce creationist ideas into the classroom in accordance with the so-called “wedge” strategy of certain pro-creationist organizations. A complicating factor is that this lesson plan has been used as the subject of graduate level research on the effect of teaching “the evolution controversy” to Ohio students, and subsequently, this research has been used to support similar initiatives in state hearings outside of Ohio. We will present the findings from a series of surveys conducted with life-science high school teachers, college faculty, and graduate students intended to establish whether or not practicing scientists and science educators agree with the Ohio Board of Education’s assessment that “there is no ID [intelligent design] there”. We will look for trends in the opinions of different sub-populations, identify key differences of opinions between participants and Ohio Board of Education members and suggest possible reasons for any apparent conflicts of opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong/By Jonathan Wells
    ON SCIENCE OR MYTH? Whymuch of what we teach about evolution is wrong Icons ofEvolution About the Author Jonathan Wells is no stranger to controversy. After spending two years in the U.S. Ar my from 1964 to 1966, he entered the University of California at Berkeley to become a science teacher. When the Army called him back from reser ve status in 1968, he chose to go to prison rather than continue to serve during the Vietnam War. He subsequently earned a Ph.D. in religious studies at Yale University, where he wrote a book about the nineteenth­ century Darwinian controversies. In 1989 he returned to Berkeley to earn a second Ph.D., this time in molecular and cell biology. He is now a senior fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (www.discovery.org/ crsc) in Seattle, where he lives with his wife, two children, and mother. He still hopes to become a science teacher. Icons ofEvolution Science or Myth? Why Much oJWhat We TeachAbout Evolution Is Wrong JONATHAN WELLS ILLUSTRATED BY JODY F. SJOGREN IIIIDIDIREGNERY 11MPUBLISHING, INC. An EaglePublishing Company • Washington, IX Copyright © 2000 by Jonathan Wells All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans­ mitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including pho­ tocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, or broadcast.
    [Show full text]
  • Zombie Science
    Zombie Science More Icons of Evolution JONATHAN WELLS Seattle Discovery Institute Press 2017 Description In 2000, biologist Jonathan Wells took the science world by storm with Icons of Evolution, a book showing how biology textbooks routinely promote Darwinism using bogus evidence—icons of evolution like Ernst Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings and peppered moths glued to tree trunks. Critics of the book complained that Wells had merely gathered up a handful of innocent textbook errors and blown them out of proportion. Now, in Zombie Science, Wells asks a simple question: If the icons of evolution were just innocent textbook errors, why do so many of them still persist? Science has enriched our lives and led to countless discoveries, but now, Wells argues, it’s being corrupted. Empirical science is devolving into zombie science, shuffling along unfazed by opposing evidence. Discredited icons of evolution rise from the dead while more icons—equally bogus—join their ranks. Like a B horror movie, they just keep coming! Zombies are make- believe, but zombie science is real—and it threatens not just science, but our whole culture. Is there a solution? Wells is sure of it, and points the way. Copyright Notice Copyright © 2017 by Discovery Institute. All Rights Reserved. Library Cataloging Data Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells Illustrations (unless otherwise noted) by Brian Gage and Anca Sandu 238 pages, 6 x 9 x 0.5 in. & 0.72 lb, 229 x 152 x 13 mm & x 325 g Library of Congress Control Number: 2017936551 SCI027000 SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Evolution SCI008000 SCIENCE / Life Sciences / Biology SCI075000 SCIENCE / Philosophy & Social Aspects ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-44-8 (paperback), 978-1-936599-46-2 (Kindle), 978-1-936599-45-5 (EPUB) Publisher Information Discovery Institute Press, 208 Columbia Street, Seattle, WA 98104 Internet: http://www.
    [Show full text]
  • Did Kettlewell Commit Fraud? Re-Examining The
    www.ssoar.info Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence Rudge, David Wÿss Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Rudge, D. W. (2005). Did Kettlewell commit fraud? Re-examining the evidence. Public Understanding of Science, 14(3), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505052890 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use. vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.
    [Show full text]
  • Teach the Controversy” Slogan?
    What’s Wrong with the “Teach the Controversy” Slogan? WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE “TEACH THE CONTROVERSY” SLOGAN? EUGENIE C. SCOTT National Center for Science Education ABSTRACT. Teachers are often exhorted by creationists to “teach the contro- versy.” Although such encouragement sounds on the surface like a proposal for critical thinking instruction, the history of the creationist movement in North America belies this claim. Rather than teach students to analyze and evaluate actual scientific controversies, the intent of “teach the controversy” exhortations is to have teachers instruct students that evolution is weak or unsubstantiated science that students should not take seriously. Such instruc- tion in alleged “evidence against evolution,” or “critical analysis of evolution” would seriously mis-educate students, and should be resisted by teachers and administrators. EN QUOI LE SLOGAN « ENSEIGNER LA CONTROVERSE » POSE T’IL LE PROBLÈME ? RÉSUMÉ. Les créationnistes encouragent souvent les professeurs à « enseigner la controverse ». Même si au premier abord de tels encouragements peuvent ressembler à la proposition d’une méthode de pensée critique, l’histoire du mouvement créationniste en Amérique du Nord dément cette affirmation. Plutôt que d’enseigner aux étudiants comment analyser et évaluer des con- troverses actuelles scientifiques, la finalité des exhortations à « enseigner la controverse » consiste à faire en sorte que les professeurs enseignent aux étudiants que l’évolution est une science faible ou non corroborée et que les étudiants ne devraient donc pas la prendre au sérieux. De telles directives quant à la présumée « preuve contre l’évolution » ou l’« analyse critique de l’évolution » contribueraient à sérieusement inculquer aux étudiants des con- naissances erronées, et les professeurs et les administrateurs doivent résister à ces directives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolutionary Embryologist Gavin Rylands De Beer (1899–1972)
    Homology and Heterochrony: The Evolutionary Embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer (1899–1972) Ingo Brigandt Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh 1017 Cathedral of Learning Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA E-mail: [email protected] Preprint of an article published in 2006 in the Journal of Experimental Zoology (Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 306B: 317–328 www.interscience.Wiley.com GAVIN RYLANDS DE BEER (1899–1972) 2 Abstract The evolutionary embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer can be viewed as one of the forerunners of modern evolutionary developmental biology in that he posed crucial questions and proposed relevant answers about the causal relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. In his developmental approach to the phylogenetic phenomenon of homology, he emphasized that homology of morphological structures is to be identified neither with the sameness of the underlying developmental processes nor with the homology of the genes that are in involved in the development of the structures. De Beer’s work on developmental evolution focused on the notion of heterochrony, arguing that paedomorphosis increases morphological evolvability and is thereby an important mode of evolution that accounts for the origin of many taxa, including higher taxa. GAVIN RYLANDS DE BEER (1899–1972) 3 Gavin Rylands de Beer (Fig. 1) was born in England in 1899, but spent the first 13 years of his life in France, where his father worked as a correspondent of a telegraph company. After returning to England, he went to Harrow School, where he became interested in zoology. In 1917 he entered Magdalen College at Oxford, graduating in 1922 after a leave for serving in the British Army during World War I.
    [Show full text]