Students and practitioners of physical sciences, exploring the white hot edge of particle physics in the search for the Higgs boson, are sometimes given to believe that physics is the most fundamental of the sciences. After all, in a strictly reductionist view, biology is simply epiphenomena of biochemistry, and biochemistry, like all chemistry, is simply epiphenomena caused by the physics of the outer electron shell. But a wise teacher of mine once pointed out that in the end we may find that biology is more fundamental than any of the sciences.
At the time, I wasn't certain what he meant, but a mature appreciation of evolution shows the power of evolutionary theory. As Dawkins explains, evolution is a completely general principle which applies, in fact is inescapable, when three basic conditions occur:
- Entities are reproducing
- Reproduction is imperfect
- Resources for reproduction are limited
With these conditions, any system will tend to exhibit evolution in the population, whether biological or not. Dawkins famously used the idea of cultural concepts of 'memes' as an example, and more recently, speculative theories about the formation of the multiverse has suggested an evolutionary explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants to yield life-sustaining conditions.
The beauty of evolutionary theory is that once the preconditions are understood, the consequences, being the evolution of the population, follows logically. The description of the theory is the explanation. This is in contrast with, say, the theory of gravitation. While Newton was able to provide a complete and concise mathematical description of the theory, he doesn't even attempt to explain "why" gravity happens.
So rationally speaking, evolutionary theory as a general rule cannot be denied. It would be true a priori. One wonders if the subjects of this video clip are aware of this:
Presumably they would take issue with one of the above conditions. The first two seem well supported by evidence in the natural world. Maybe they would claim that god created plentiful resources for his creation, therefore there is no competition. Or perhaps they accept that evolution did occur, but only "within" species (which I believe creationists describe as microevolution). We don't see the full exchange of ideas in the clip, but the short edited section gives the dismaying impression that no really challenge to creationist ideas is given by students or teachers.
Creationists agitated for equal time in the classroom for their "Intelligent Design" Trojan horse under a "teach the controversy" banner. This is reminiscent of the false balance in media which QED guest Professor Steve Jones highlighted in a report for the BBC Trust last year. The independent report on the BBC's science coverage expressed concerns that, in an effort to present a balanced picture of scientific subjects of interest to the general public, the BBC's editorial policy encouraged journalists working in current affairs to present opposing views when scientific consensus is well settled. A diligent researcher can always find an opposing view to even the most uncontroversial topics. A good place to start for contra-science theories would be crank.net which careful collects all the crazy half theories people have dreamed up and believe hold the key to understanding the universe. Sadly, they are labouring under the misconception that scientists haven't already thought of it, and they would typically be wrong. Richard Feynman explains this beautifully as he discusses the scientific method in this YouTube clip. People who know what they are talking about are so satisfying to listen to, and that is why I am looking forward to seeing Steve Jones at QED this March.