The racist origins, racialist connotations, and purity assumptions of the concept of "admixture" in human evolutionary genetics.

The concept of admixture is currently widely being used, both in population genetics research and in DNA ancestry testing discourse. It is assumed to describe the process of gene flow between 2 previously distinct populations that eventually become admixed because of this flow. The concept per se does not require pure or unadmixed populations; the changes are relative and what matters is the level of admixture before and after the event under consideration. However, in this paper, we argue that the concept of admixture as currently used assumes the existence of pure or unadmixed categories. These do not need to have actually existed but to be able to exist in principle. We argue that this is a problematic notion that accrues from the racialist origins of the term admixture, which, as a result, is based on assumptions about purity. We suggest that scientists should be very cautious in their use of this term, especially in science education and communication. We also suggest that the term admixture should be better replaced by terms denoting similarity rather than difference.

Reconsidering the goals of evolution education: defining evolution and evolutionary literacy.

In this paper, I argue that for both theoretical and practical purposes, it is useful for science education to clearly distinguish between science content knowledge and skills on the one hand, and the competencies related to their application in everyday life. This can be based on a distinction made by Douglas Roberts between two visions of literacy, and it can be effectively reconceptualized as the distinction between two types of literacy relevant to science: Science literacy, which is literacy relevant to the processes and products of science, related to the content of science taught in classrooms (literacy about issues within science); and Scientific literacy, which is literacy relevant to questions that students may encounter as citizens and to the socio-ethical implications of scientific knowledge (literacy about the implications of science for society). Based on this, we can in turn distinguish between two types of literacy related to evolution: Evolution literacy, which is literacy relevant to the evolution content taught in classrooms; and Evolutionary literacy, which is literacy relevant to questions that students may encounter as citizens and to the socio-ethical implications of scientific knowledge. In this article I argue that whereas a lot of attention has been given to evolution literacy as a learning goal, there has been less reflection and discussion about evolutionary literacy-and it is exactly the distinction between these two types of literacy that helps one realize this. Teaching for evolutionary literacy requires specific skills from teachers, which go beyond their ability to teach concepts and explanations. My aim is to initiate a discussion about how to set evolutionary literacy as a learning objective at schools along evolution literacy. A key issue in such a case is how we could prepare teachers who would be capable, and confident, to address issues going beyond the typical science content, and which are often related to worldviews, in the classroom.

Implicit associations of teleology and essentialism concepts with genetics concepts among secondary school students.

In this article, we present the development and validation of an implicit association test for measuring secondary school students' associations between genetics concepts and teleology concepts on the one hand, and between genetics concepts and essentialism concepts on the other hand. In total, 169 students from 16 school classes took part in the study, from January 2018 to May 2018. We investigated the strength of the aforementioned associations and the influence of various covariates such as gender, age, school class, or previous learning of biology on the association of teleology or essentialism concepts with genetics concepts through an analysis of covariance and a multi-level analysis. We found moderate associations between genetics and teleology concepts, as well as between genetics and essentialism concepts. These results might reflect a tendency of students of different ages and with various backgrounds to think about genes in terms of goals (teleology) and stability (essentialism), which should be investigated further in future research.

Students' "teleological misconceptions" in evolution education: why the underlying design stance, not teleology per se, is the problem.

Teleology, explaining the existence of a feature on the basis of what it does, is usually considered as an obstacle or misconception in evolution education. Researchers often use the adjective "teleological" to refer to students' misconceptions about purpose and design in nature. However, this can be misleading. In this essay, I explain that teleology is an inherent feature of explanations based on natural selection and that, therefore, teleological explanations are not inherently wrong. The problem we might rather address in evolution education is not teleology per se but the underlying "design stance". With this I do not refer to creationism/intelligent design, and to the inference to a creator from the observation of the apparent design in nature (often described as the argument from design). Rather, the design stance refers to the intuitive perception of design in nature in the first place, which seems to be prevalent and independent from religiosity in young ages. What matters in evolution education is not whether an explanation is teleological but rather the underlying consequence etiology: whether a trait whose presence is explained in teleological terms exists because of its selection for its positive consequences for its bearers, or because it was intentionally designed, or simply needed, for this purpose. In the former case, the respective teleological explanation is scientifically legitimate, whereas in the latter case it is not. What then should be investigated in evolution education is not whether students provide teleological explanations, but which consequence etiologies these explanations rely upon. Addressing the design stance underlying students' teleological explanations could be a main aim of evolution education.

Reconsidering the Meaning of Concepts in Biology: Why Distinctions Are So Important.

Concepts have a central and important place in science, therefore, it is important that their meanings are always made clear. However, such clarity does not always exist, even in the case of such fundamental biological concepts as "gene" and "adaptation." A quick look at textbooks reveals that different meanings may be attributed to the same concept, even within the same textbook, without explicitly discussing the differences of those meanings. This can be misleading, and mask important conceptual differences. Therefore, the differences between the various meanings of the same concept should be discussed and explained in order for conceptual understanding to be achieved.

Which question do polls about evolution and belief really ask, and why does it matter?

Data from studies conducted to determine acceptance rates for evolution are often misleading. The questions that are asked and compared to one another do not always give an authentic picture of respondents' views. Quite often, polls, such as those by IPSOS, Gallup, and PEW, also run together questions asking respondents' beliefs in concepts like God with questions asking respondents' beliefs about concepts like evolution. The two are distinct and should not be confused. One might believe in evolution while having wrong beliefs about it, whereas someone else might decide not to believe in evolution while having accurate beliefs about it. Distinguishing between " belief in" and " belief about" might help remove an unrecognized confounding element from these studies.

Genetics, genomics and society: the responsibilities of scientists for science communication and education.

Misconceptions about genetics and genomics, such as notions of genetic determinism and the existence of 'genes for' particular traits, are widespread both in educational contexts and in the public perception of genetics and genomics. Owing to such misunderstandings, the prospect of personalized medicine often raises concerns with the general public about possible adverse societal consequences of the technologies that are implemented. Among the questions that are to be addressed in this context are: to what extent is personalized medical treatment possible? Does it require access to sensitive personal data? Who should be given such access? What other ethical issues might be raised by personalized medicine? How could these be answered? We argue that scientists have a professional responsibility to effectively communicate current knowledge and views about potential applications to the public in order to better address and resolve such issues.