It is not necessarily an obvious matter, as today Darwin is often highly inconvenient for some of the most progressive progressives. The theory of evolution itself is not “progressive” in any sense, although it was mistakenly taught as such in various courses for party cadres in communist regimes, and consequently – in schools “behind the iron curtain”. Denying the “struggle for existence” as conflicting with the spirit of collective cooperation also appeared in the blissfully bygone times when Trofim Lysenko’s “theory” was put into practice, claiming that if you put pea seeds in icy water, the plant will become frost-resistant. In other words, that “you can turn oats into threadworms,” as commented by the late Polish geneticist, Prof. Wacław Gajewski.

Setting aside Lysenkoism, it must be noted that natural selection in the Darwinian sense is neither random nor progressive, meaning it does not lead to a predetermined goal called perfection. Organisms are “improved” only in the sense of better adaptation to the environment at a given moment. For evolutionary success (i.e., having grandchildren), plasticity and adaptability are more important than striving for some kind of perfection.

It is also difficult to portray Darwin himself as a progressive figure in the context of our times (not to mention that attempting such mental acrobatics with anyone at any time is anachronistic and unwise). On the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the theory of evolution and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species in 2009, Steven Rose, a retired professor of biology and neurobiology at the Open University in London, published the following words in the prestigious scientific journal EMBO Reports: “After all, Darwin was a man of his era, class, and society. It is true that he favoured a monogenic rather than the then-dominant polygenic view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races based on differences in skin colour, eyes, or hair. He was also convinced [...] that white races – especially Europeans – were evolutionarily more advanced than black races [...]. Darwin’s views on gender were also completely conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is that men are ‘more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than women, [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] it is said that the formation of his skull is intermediate between that of a child and an adult male’ (Darwin 1871).”

The theory of evolution removed from saffron textbooks

Increasingly, prestigious scientific journals are voicing opinions on matters that do not concern the historical perspective of scientific development, discoveries, or the directions in which contemporary science is heading. They sometimes express views on policies related to science and education, especially when tensions arise between David from the scientific community and Goliath in power or even the rest of society.

At the end of April, an interesting article of this kind was published in the prestigious journal Science by Athar Parvaiz, addressing the eradication of Darwin and his theory from high school textbooks in the vast and still exotic country of India. This, of course, led to mass protests by scientists and technologists on the subcontinent. However, the number of protesters is small compared to the entire population. The open letter by the Breakthrough Science Society was signed by around four thousand researchers in the first two weeks, out of nearly one and a half billion inhabitants.

In the letter, Indian scientists protest against the decision to remove information and questions about Darwin’s theory of evolution from textbooks used by millions of 9th and 10th-grade students. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has been the basis for textbooks in India since the 1960s. It is supposed to assist and advise the central and state governments on academic matters related to school education. Theoretically, it is a politically independent organisation, an assembly of specialists entrusted with the education of 256 million students in primary and secondary schools in India. In practice, the model textbooks published by the Council have been controversial for years. The Council is accused of reflecting the political views of the ruling party and, when Hindu nationalists are in power, of “saffronisation.”

This neologism refers, among other things, to the political line of nationalists favouring Hinduism at the expense of representatives of other religions, who are treated as second-class citizens. It also glorifies the Hindu contribution to Indian history while undermining the role of other cultures and ethnicities. This ideology has transformed from anti-colonial to fundamentally racist, which causes social unrest in India itself, where less than 40% of citizens speak Hindi, and where other ethnicities never exceed 8% of the population, with Hinduism dominating religiously, practised by 8 out of 10 people. The Muslim population, as another significant group, does not exceed 15% of the total population.

    SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE 
     Dr Kamila Junik from the Institute of Middle and Far East Studies at the Faculty of International and Political Studies of Jagiellonian University comments on this phenomenon as follows: “Saffronisation does not only concern politics but every aspect of social life, including education. Successive Ministers of Education during the rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have made it a point of honour to eradicate any foreign influences, especially Western ones, from school textbooks and fill the resulting gaps with patriotic content. Under the guise of promoting their own heritage and ancient culture, the process of rewriting textbooks began. Special committees were appointed to review ancient texts for information about India’s contributions to science (such as mathematics, astronomy, or philosophy).”

Ancient Hindus already built spaceships...

As explained by the specialist, the changes did not aim to broaden general knowledge with an Indian context (taking into account the plurality of narratives and undoubtedly existing multiculturalism on the subcontinent). Instead, they sought to replace everything with a single appropriate narrative: Hindu nationalism. The changes made by the BJP in the early 21st century were attempted to be reversed when the Indian National Congress returned to power. However, when the people’s party led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi won the penultimate elections, which was sealed by his re-election in subsequent ones, the process of correcting the “leftist” knowledge in textbooks started anew. “For example, all information about caste inequalities and the marginalisation of lower social strata, as well as violence based on caste in Indian history, disappeared. Diminishing the merits and achievements of figures from other social, religious, or ethnic groups served the gradual exclusion of their contributions to Indian society. This did not meet with approval everywhere: in states where the BJP does not have a majority, the Hindu-centric version of the subcontinent’s history presented in the new books was not accepted. It not only fails to reflect the factual state but is a dangerous tool used for ideological purposes,” summarises Dr Junik.

The erasure of Darwinism and discussions about it from official school textbooks has been primarily an outrage as the beginning of a “parody of comprehensive secondary education” – as evolutionary biologist Amitabh Joshi from the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research described it in an interview with Science. It also indicates growing support for pseudoscience among Indian officials. For example, it is alarming how India teaches about Aryans and Sanskrit (considered an ancient language and texts), but that is a story for another time. Researchers and politicians associated with Hindu nationalists have expressed doubts not only about biological evolution in the Darwinian sense but have also spread narratives – in both conventional and social media – claiming that ancient Hindus built spaceships and conducted research on stem cells.

Watching “Ancient Aliens” is not prohibited, but it is probably not wise to build one’s knowledge of the world solely based on that TV series... especially when governing a population of over a billion.

The protests may be too little, too late because the NCERT erased these topics for the first time during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic to “improve online classes” and avoid “irrelevant” content in the “current context,” as explained in an official document a year ago. Interestingly, even a prestigious magazine like Science encountered resistance from NCERT officials, who referred journalists to the Ministry of Education, which declined to comment.

Like everywhere else in the world, the majority of Indian students will not study biology. This means that cancelled evolution will never appear as a topic during their education. However, it is a fundamental scientific theory, one of the few generalisations that biology has reached. It’s like removing Newton’s theory of gravity from the teaching of physics. Consequently, numerous organisations, including the Indian Academy of Sciences, have expressed their concerns to higher-level state officials.

Quieter over Darwin

And how do we learn about the theory of evolution in Poland and the broader Western world? I asked Piotr Kossobudzki-Kanar, a biology teacher, creator of exhibitions and scenarios for popular science classes, and co-author of a natural science textbook. He told me that “in Polish schools, Darwin and the theory of evolution are not officially erased or censored in the spotlight. These topics are present in the official biology curricula in primary schools, high schools, and technical schools. However, in practice, evolution is pushed to the sidelines in education. Only three hours are dedicated to its explanation throughout primary school, according to the accompanying teaching programs for the most popular textbooks. Additionally, we only reach the topic of evolution in the eighth grade when almost all other areas of biology have been covered, and students are focused on exams in Polish, mathematics, and foreign languages.”

I share Piotr Kossobudzki-Kanar’s belief that it is fundamentally ineffective in teaching biology because the theory of evolution is not just some cherry on top of the biological cake; it is the foundation upon which understanding of living organisms should be built. As my interlocutor put it, “the theory of evolution explains key aspects for understanding nature: why we are surrounded by a wealth of different life forms, why an organism like a pine tree or a tapeworm is structured and functions in a particular way, and it elucidates the relationships between organisms. We should talk about it from the beginning of biology classes, remind students of it on various occasions, and gradually add more details. But now there is not enough time for that. It only suffices for a few basic facts, and there is no opportunity to showcase contemporary methods of studying evolution, such as utilising genetics. This leaves students and graduates vulnerable to the advocates of pseudoscience.”

The escalating aversion to the theory of evolution in education in India still appears to be an isolated case. As explained to me by the specialist, Darwinism remains a permanent element of public education in the vast majority of countries worldwide (except, for example, Saudi Arabia and Turkey). Even in theocracies like Iran, the theory of evolution is taught. At the same time, there are occasional attempts to teach anti-evolutionary ideas, such as creationism, on an equal footing in schools. However, in most cases, such attempts are rejected by institutions overseeing public education and by courts. Nevertheless, such proposals have been made multiple times in conservative states in the USA. Individual politicians also advocate for such ideas in countries like the UK, Serbia, the Netherlands, and Poland.

Usually, these attempts are justified by arguments about pluralism of views and the need to enable students to encounter different opinions. However, I would like to point out that similar motivations do not (yet?) lead politicians or lawmakers to introduce the teaching of a flat Earth on equal terms in schools, even though there are individuals and even groups who consider the roundness of our planet a “NASA conspiracy” or something similarly absurd. This is primarily because they were poorly educated, as the roundness of our planet has been indisputably demonstrated, including the establishment of meridians.

Since the term “theory” in the language of science means something different from its everyday usage, where it replaces the word “hypothesis,” a scientific theory represents the closest approximation to truth that science can achieve. As my interlocutor described it, it is “the most reliable and comprehensive form of knowledge, repeatedly supported by evidence and accepted as the prevailing truth (until conclusively refuted). The theory of evolution is scientifically as valuable as the heliocentric theory or Einstein’s theory of relativity.”

Could what is happening with Darwin’s theory in India influence the rest of the world? It will certainly deepen the brain drain of biological and medical specialists from India. It may also impact the situation in neighbouring countries. For example, in Muslim-majority Pakistan, biology textbooks are preceded by a warning, as reported by the author in Science, stating that readers “will encounter the theory of evolution but are advised not to believe in it as it is unscientific, lacks evidence, and contradicts Islam.”

– Magdalena Kawalec-Segond     SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE  – Translated by jz

Source:
https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-india-protest-move-drop-darwinian-evolution-textbooks