Evolution must be taught
Your story last week about the teaching of evolution in schools refers. There are only two ways known to us in which new species could have appeared on Earth — either fully formed by miraculous, instant creation or by evolutionary change in older species. Religious groups that accept the first method are ”creationists” who believe their creation stories are literally true.
But creationists can study evolution without believing what they read. Our Bill of Rights confers freedom of religious belief on every citizen, and life sciences teachers must respect this freedom.
Other religious groups, such as the Catholic Church, accept findings about evolution and concern themselves with the human soul. Such faiths view their creation stories as allegories, symbolic of God’s creation.
Many evolutionary biologists are adherents of these religions, and religious people who accept evolution have a range of personal beliefs about God’s role in the evolutionary process.
Charles Darwin, for instance, was a creationist during the voyage of the Beagle. He later became an evolutionist and abandoned creationism, but remained religious for many years.
He wrote in The Origin of Species: ”There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” Evolution makes atheism easier, but certainly not obligatory.
Evolution is the central, explanatory and coordinating concept of the biological sciences and must form part of any reputable life sciences course.
Another reason for teaching it is that it is anti-racist. Differences in skin colour, for example, were evolutionary responses to the intensity of ultraviolet light at different latitudes.
Evolution tells us that all humans belong to one species and that no group is more ”evolved” than another. Our biological differences are only skin-deep, and our cultural differences were accidents of history and environment, are learnt, and can be transmitted to anyone.
We have a duty to provide learners with this information. — Jane Dugard
![]()
Teacher Nazeem Adam is quoted in your story as saying that evolution ”must be taught as one of several theories with its own loopholes, gaps and weaknesses”. Which ”several theories”?
I assume that as evolution will be taught in science classes, these theories will be based on the principles of methodological naturalism and scientific method.
If Adam means special creation by a god or gods as one of his several theories, this is not within the remit of science and can be kept safely to religious education classes.
The fact is that we do not have a better scientific explanation for the form and diversity of life on this planet than evolution. — Philip Bateman, department of zoology and entomology, University of Pretoria
![]()
To say one is ”against evolution” is like saying one is against a heliocentric solar system. Theocentric teachings have their place in dedicated religious instruction and confessional education — not in biology classes.
Penny Vinjevold’s statements perpetuate the impression that there is a rational choice between competing, equally valid paradigms. Evolutionary theory is more than ”one school of thought”. Despite the gaps in our understanding, it is a scientific theory — unlike creationism.
If teachers are ”unprepared”, this places the onus squarely on our teacher-education system to prepare them. — Kai Horsthemke, Wits School of Education
![]()
It is regrettable that teacher Nazeem Adam is in a position to put constraints on the minds of our children, as his thinking is under-informed by about 150 years.
Evolution is not a theory; it is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and comprehensively proved process ever investigated. The results that continue to accrue from field studies and biochemical and genetic analysis provide ever more compelling evidence that evolution, or development through natural selection, is the only process by which the remarkable diversity of life on earth has arisen.
When religious fundamentalists refer to themselves as ”creationists” or supporters of ”intelligent design”, they produce no supporting evidence.
Their contentions seem mainly to depend on faith — the ability to believe nonsense. — M Hearn
![]()
When I did A level biology in England in the 1960s we didn’t cover evolution in depth, but we took its broad principles for granted. Had it been off the agenda it is difficult to imagine how the genetics of inheritance or the patterns and diversity within the animal and plant kingdoms would have made much sense.
No scientific theory comes with a guarantee of absolute truth. But the best available theory is the one with the greatest predictive and explanatory power and the least conflict with other available theories, all selected using the same principles of scientific method developed and honed since the Enlightenment to underpin rational thought.
When Adam says teachers should be ”wary of presenting evolution theory as an absolute fact”, he is right. That is true of all science.
But it doesn’t imply that evolution ”must be taught as one of several theories with its own loopholes, gaps and weaknesses”. I was unaware that in the interests of balance, schools should present rivals to the atomic model to ensure students are free to choose.
Imagine an official saying that to protect educators from legal action no child would be compelled to ”adopt” or ”defend the viewpoint [of] or in any way subscribe to” the kinetic theory of gases!
Evolution should be taught the same way as cell biology and Newtonian mechanics. — Chris Lawrence, Claremont, Cape Town
![]()
The world of theology has never understood Genesis. Each day of creation in Genesis was a 24-hour day, shown to Moses, taken from seven different weeks, and each week was from a different geologic age. The seven days conveyed to Moses were not linear.
There was no ”evolution”. There was Creation, followed by extinction, then six periods of restoration, with five more extinction events in between, ending each era of mankind. With the third era of mankind, God ”redesigned” mankind to be in His image, in about 64-million BC. — Herman Cummings, Fortson, United States
![]()
Evolution is one of the crowning achievements of modern science. Developed 150 years ago, it has since been expanded to include new discoveries, such as genetics. Over all these years, nothing has overturned the theory, though many have tried.
Most attacks on evolution come from people of religious conviction who feel it robs them of their connection to their creator. This will no doubt come as a surprise to renowned biologist Ken Miller, a staunch Christian.
Evolution is atheistic in exactly the same way as the theory of gravity. It makes no case for or against a creator — it merely is.
Some try to argue that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that other theories should be taught as well. There is the fact of evolution, seen in the fossil record which shows the development of species over time, and the theory of evolution, which explains this development.
Creationists say ”teach the controversy” in an attempt to imply that biologists cannot agree on evolution. The problem is that there is no controversy. Discoveries have merely modified some of our ideas.
Some attack evolutionary theory by blaming such things as Nazism on it. Religion and science have both been distorted to accommodate preconceived notions, and should not be blamed for the excesses committed in their name.
South Africa has provided some of the best fossil examples of human evolution, including the Taung child and Mrs Ples. We call ourselves the ”Cradle of Mankind”, yet our schoolchildren are not taught why. Evolution is an inspiring theory, which enables us to understand the living world around us. For it not to be taught is a travesty, equivalent to teaching children that the world is flat. — David van Wyk
![]()
![]()
No purge in KZN govt
A recent article referred to IFP president Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s claims of a purge of IFP supporters from the KwaZulu-Natal government.
It is an untruth that there has been a purge of civil servants because of their political affiliation.
Ninety percent of KwaZulu-Natal government employees were inherited from the KwaZulu government. Of 14 department heads, only three are new: Gabi Gumbi-Masilela, Modidima Mannya and Cassius Lubisi.
Yasmin Bacus and Stella Khumalo, heads of community safety and arts, culture and tourism respectively, were appointed by this government after rising within their departments long before the ANC took control of the province. Fikiswa Madlopa, head of public works, served under different IFP provincial ministers.
The late Charles Dlamini, former education department head, wrote in 2003 that it is desirable for department heads to belong to the same political party as their provincial ministers. We rejected that notion then and reject it now.
There is another issue. I would have hoped that the latest IFP conference would say something about KwaZulu-Natal, especially areas under the former KwaZulu homeland which are South Africa’s most underdeveloped.
The conference recommitted itself to working with the DA and Freedom Front. I would have expected the delegates to pause and think what the people of KwaDlangezwa and Dlangubo, who fetch water 4km away, have in common with those parties.
I would have thought that the conference would endorse the bilateral agreement between the ANC and the IFP on a working relationship for the sake of our long-suffering people. In forming a government, a party that is at least one representative ahead should appoint mayors and premiers, rather than ganging up with smaller parties whose aims have nothing to do with the interests of IFP voters.
The voters are consistently rejecting the IFP’s current policies. The conference should have confronted the fact that a party that used to command 1,8-million voters in KwaZulu-Natal cannot even reach a million today. It is a test of leadership to abandon embarrassing policies. — Sibusiso Ndebele, ANC chairperson and KwaZulu-Natal Premier
![]()
![]()
No Cosatu ‘wish list’
Cosatu denies the claim (October 26) that it has drawn up a ”wish list” of candidates for the ANC’s national executive committee (NEC). No such list has even been discussed.
The only pronouncement Cosatu has made on the issue was contained in a resolution of the central committee in September, which identified and recommended to members in ANC structures candidates for the top six positions of the ANC NEC.
The committee also mandated the central executive committee to draw up a list of additional members to serve on the ANC NEC, and to manage, together with alliance partners, the potential problems that might arise as a consequence of Cosatu’s 9th congress resolution on the leadership question in the ANC.
The committee further declared its support for the quota system to ensure that women are properly represented in all leadership structures of the movement.
Cosatu has demanded that the NEC meet the federation’s criteria and more accurately represent the ANC’s constituency, with more people from the rank-and-file structures.
All these questions will be further discussed at the next central executive committee meeting in November. Only that meeting will have the authority to decide whether to publish a further list of nominations and if so, who should be on it. — Patrick Craven, Cosatu national spokesperson
![]()
![]()
Powerful deterrent
In contrast with your editorial (”Murder most foul”, October 26), I believe the death penalty, imposed by a court after due process, is society’s commitment to the right to life of innocent people.
Some murders are driven by fierce emotions and, in rare cases, ”innocent” criminals are sentenced to death. The death penalty for political crimes is controversial.
But common sense knows the death penalty is a powerful deterrent. Abolitionists graphically describe the fear sentenced murderers feel. Murders during hijackings, the premeditated killing of witnesses and, worst of all, police officers, will drop dramatically when capital punishment comes back. — Graham McIntosh
![]()
![]()
In brief
Shaun de Waal writes that strict Muslims ”dress their women in all-concealing garments to shield them” (October 26). Speaking as a Muslim woman, I dress myself. I converted to Islam of my own volition and I’m frankly tired of the media perception that Muslim women must be oppressed, whether consciously or unconsciously. — Fiona Zerbst, Cape Town
![]()
Drew Forrest has got it all wrong by seeing Douglas Gibson’s ambassadorial appointment is a sign of an ANC/DA thaw (October 26). Fawning over Mbeki after getting a diplomatic posting is an ignoble end to his political career. Perhaps the thought of prancing around in a pin-striped suit and taking tea on the lawns of his residence in the exotic East has addled his conceited brain. — S Kaye, Cape Town
![]()
Zapiro is a national treasure. Once again, with last week’s image of Smuts Ngonyama and the gramaphone on his head, he has spoken volumes with a little ink. — Kevin Charleston, Tokai, Cape Town
![]()
Saru’s idea of a World Cup victory parade in Soweto was brilliant. To stage it at 8am on a cold, wet Saturday, without letting anyone know, was sheer bloody stupidity. — DV Mihailovic
![]()
Nhlanhla Buthelezi (Letters, October 26) hurls unwarranted insults at Blade Nzimande and Zwelinzima Vavi. He should concentrate on the good cause Nzimande and Vavi are championing, which will reverse the serious unemployment in his F section of Kwamashu. — Lindani Gcwensa, Nongoma Road, KwaMashu