The term teleology was coined by Christian Wolff in 1728 and refers to the Greek word telos or end. Yet the concept of a final cause was already developed in antiquity. Aristotle is frequently portrayed as a finalist, and according to Mayr (1992:121), cosmic teleology has been referred to as an Aristotelian view. Grene (1972), however, argues that Aristotelian telos has nothing to do with purpose:

Modern Aristotelian specialists also agree that Aristotle’s apparent teleology applies specifically to ontogeny and adaptation in living organisms (Mayr 1992:121).

Teleological explanations generally refer to phenomena in terms of an ultimate or final end (telos). Prior to Darwin, no other world view has influenced biology to the extent that teleological thinking has, because a teleological interpretation of the cosmos and its inhabitants was the accepted paradigm in the Western world (Mayr 1992:117). Most Christians supported a finalistic world view, and driven by the Enlightenment, it sustained a hope for a better future, as evinced by the functional interpretation of the natural world by theologians such as William Paley. Prior to 1859, organismic adaptations were considered teleological phenomena attributed to the designs and intent of a creator. Thus, Paley explained natural phenomena as the evidential unveiling of the existence and wisdom of God, the Creator.

Paley (1803:12) proposed that there could be no design without a designer and contended that the functional complexity, inherent in biological structures such as the human eye, was evidential proof of the existence of a cosmic designer. In 1859, Darwin introduced the theory of natural selection. Based on an extended body of research, it offered a causal, evidence-based explanation of evolution as a natural phenomenon, invalidating the teleological interpretation as expounded by Paley. Darwin implicitly accepted that the various parts of organisms are adapted to the functions they fulfil and thus replaced theological teleology with scientific teleology, which required no metaphysical intervention. ‘At that point biology came into maturity as a science’ (Ayala 1970:2).

According to Mayr (1992):

Mayr (1992:121) has also suggested that the concept of teleology has been unsatisfactorily analysed in philosophical literature and actually represents an example of how not to do philosophy because philosophers have ignored the findings of biologists, ‘… even though teleology concerns mostly or entirely the world of life’. He quotes Ruse (1981) who has pointed out that ‘What draws philosophers toward teleology is that one has to know, or at least it is generally thought that one has to know, absolutely no biology at all!’ According to Mayr (1992:124), most philosophers have regarded teleology as a single concept, even though it has been applied to different natural processes. Consequently, Mayr (1992) considers teleology as a heterogeneous term comprising at least three separate concepts, namely, teleomatic processes, teleonomic processes, and adapted features.

The term teleomatic refers to goal-directed processes, which conform to natural laws and automatically incorporate a final state, determined either by the second law of thermodynamics or the law of gravity, such as a cooling piece of metal or a falling rock (Mayr 1992:125).

The term teleonomic refers to goal-directed processes within animals that unfold under the guidance of an internal programme. The development of an embryo and the complex behaviour of bees are cases in point. Each programme is the result of natural selection (Mayr 1992:126).

Adapted features are characteristics of an organism that serve a particular function (Mayr 1992:130), for example, the tail fluke of a whale.

Mayr’s (1992) breakdown of the various interpretations of the concept of teleology has brought clarity to the way in which it should be understood and appropriately applied. Although his terms for the individual categories of teleology have not been generally employed in the literature, it is clear that the terms selection teleology, scientific teleology, design teleology and theological teleology, as used in this contribution, are appropriate short-cuts and do not contradict his basic definitions.

After 1859, evidence for the natural origin of complex organs, like the human eye, accumulated rapidly. Adaptation as the consequence of natural selection is a ubiquitous feature in the world at large. The adaptive behaviour of carnivores, raptors, and indeed all animals and plants is incontrovertible. Human hands are adapted for grasping, and male blue-footed boobies [Sula nebouxii] use their conspicuously coloured feet in sexual display. Organisms are also adapted to their geographic environs, and this is reflected in their lifestyles. The elongated middle finger of the aye-aye [Daubentonia madagascariensis], a lemur from Madagascar, is a functionally evolved adaptation for sourcing food items and is employed to detect and extract burrowed larvae from tree trunks. However, human culture often applies innovative but generally inaccurate functions to natural phenomena, and in the culture of the local Sakalava people, the elongated digit functions as an instrument of death and is supposedly used to sever the aortic vein in sleeping humans (Liquin & Lombroso 2018:22).¹

Dawkins (1995:81) observes that humans are naturally preoccupied with purpose, always wishing to know what things are ‘for’. According to Liquin and Lombroso (2018:22), children and some adults typically tend to view biological traits from a teleological perspective, which produces a false understanding of the natural world. Explanations based on evolutionary principles are often counterintuitive; thus, very young children, as well as some older individuals, readily apply the naïve realism of teleological explanations by default. As dolphins occupy marine or freshwater habitats, they are naturally regarded as fish, while the function of tigers is to inhabit a zoo (Kelemen & DiYanni 2005:252). Inorganic features in nature, like pointy rocks, are often functionally interpreted by young children as scratch stations for animals (Kelemen 2004:296) or to prevent animals from sitting down and squashing them (Kelemen & DiYanni 2005:252), whereas the function of flat rocks is interpreted as landing areas for birds (Werth & Allchin 2020:6).²

Diesendruck and Haber (2009:113) agree that children’s essentialist and teleological convictions are initially intuitively acquired. However:

Biology curricula based on evolutionary principles, and taught responsibly, provide alternative natural explanations that should, over time, correct these assumptions. However, in the debate around teleology, it is often the case that clear, scientific, evidence-based explanations do not convince children or learners from creationist homes, and their religion-based teleological stance generally overrides all evolutionary principles. Research has also shown that levels of religiosity in Christian communities are inversely proportional to the acceptance of evolution (Wingert et al. 2023:2).

Teleological interpretations of natural phenomena are still a universal occurrence, which seriously undermines the ability of students to appreciate the importance and explanatory power of evolutionary biology. Consequently, the Inter-Academy Panel, a global network of 68 science academies, has published the following statement on the teaching of evolutionary biology (Inter-Academy Panel 2006):

According to Barnes et al. (2017:1), a greater understanding of a subject, which clashes with the cultural identity of an individual does not increase acceptance of the subject. In this respect, fact-based arguments are often inefficacious for approving data about apparently controversial subjects such as climate change and evolution. They observe that even when individuals understand such propositions, they consider them invalid if they are perceived to be at odds with their cultural stance.

Sociopolitically, South Africa presents a unique educational landscape. During the aftermath of the Anglo-Boer war and the impoverishment of the Afrikaner community, most of the 20th century was viewed through the narrow lens of a local version of Calvinism, known as Neo-Calvinism, which readily supported the Apartheid system and, through the system of Christian National Education, ignored the teaching of evolution. By the 1930s, Neo-Calvinism was so exclusive and intolerant that the statement contra principa negantem, non est disputandem [there can be no debate with those that dispute the Calvinistic point of view] often appeared in the literature of the time (De Kock 1936:85):

Despite the eventual dismantling of the system of Apartheid and the introduction of evolutionary biology and, specifically, human evolution, in the school system after 1994, the former sentiments are still evident in South African society, indiscriminately infecting learners, students and members of the public.

The ill-conceived (and now defunct) concept of Social Darwinism was a much-favoured explanation for racial segregation during the apartheid-era. However, it still casts a long shadow in South Africa and when mentioned in class ‘… the topic of human origins, combined with racialised politics and an overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christian belief system, often creates heated debate’ (Sutherland & Labbe 2019:5).

When students misunderstand evolutionary principles, it is often described as teleological (Kampourakis 2020:11). However, if a feature has been naturally selected to perform a function, it is regarded as selection teleology and constitutes a valid scientific stance in biology. Problems arise when functions are attributed to design teleology, accrediting the existence of a feature to the intentions of an external agent or the needs of the organism. Design-based explanations are correct when referring to artefacts such as spoons and computers, which are designed for a specific use but are scientifically spurious when applied to living systems, which exhibit many useless or malfunctioning features (Kampourakis 2020):

‘Evolution is the highest ordering principle in biology, dealing with questions about ultimate causation of form and functioning at all levels of life’ (Dempster & Hugo 2006:106).

‘Understanding evolution, especially human evolution, is essential to South Africa’s growing democracy’ (Sutherland & L’abbé 2019:6). It encompasses a historical narrative, which explains the complex diversity and relationships of all organisms, past and present, and elucidates, inter alia, the concept of human variation, the initial step in respecting the heterogenous composition of South African society. It draws on research results ranging from geology, palaeontology, comparative anatomy, embryology and genetics. Deprived of scientific literacy, either by choice or through lack of educational support in rural communities, the myth of racial stereotypes will endure, as will homophobic attitudes, thus depriving learners of the ability to understand, correctly interpret and debate these misconceptions. As a key concept in science, educators have the responsibility to ensure that South African learners acquire a basic scientific understanding of the concept of evolution and its role as a prime interdisciplinary agent, uniting the concept of origins and relationships in the natural sciences, thereby introducing learners to a conceptually wider approach to living systems and natural phenomena and encouraging tertiary-level study.

The extensive anthropological heritage of Africa, and particularly South Africa, attests to the fact that human evolution is Africa-centred, and through responsible tuition, exhibitions, museum displays and practical experience, South Africans are able to understand and take pride in the diversity of our heterogeneous population, biologically as well as socially.

Evolutionary theory permeates a wide variety of disciplines, including the development of medical techniques to quell the persistent evolution of pathogens. Despite assurances that innovative technological strategies will serve to counteract or possibly reverse global warming, it arguably remains the most important issue in the history of humanity, as it may lead to extensive depletion or even the demise of humanity as it is presently known. Countermeasures acknowledge the need for an evolutionary approach based on hard scientific principles.

Scientists are often nonplussed when audiences, or for that matter, learners and students, do not respond positively to fact-based presentations of scientific data, especially when human evolution is unambiguously conveyed. Many African students are also opposed to the concept of evolution because it represents Western science, which is seen as contrary to their belief system. Ironically, Sutherland and L’Abbé (2019:5) point out that ‘… beyond ancestral beliefs, the belief system in question (Christianity) is a consequence of colonisation’. Responsible tuition therefore demands that all learners should be exposed to the fact that evolution demonstrates inter alia the genetic similarity of all humans, past and present, and therefore all of us belong to the same species, contradicting the insidious myth of different human races. There is only one race in existence, and that is the human race. Skin colour is geographically determined, and like beauty, it is only skin deep. The fact that evolutionary biology actually presents a bulwark against racism appears not to be generally known.

The introduction of the Natural Sciences Learning Area Statement (Grades R-9) and the Life Sciences subject statement (Grades 10–12) in South African schools was initially hailed as a positive development. However, if we acknowledge that an in-depth understanding of evolution at the school level is an important requirement for learners, then the Natural Sciences and Life Sciences curricula are destined to fail. Dempster and Hugo (2006:111) point out that it requires highly specialised teachers with an extensive knowledge of evolution who are able to convey its preponderant arguments. It also presupposes that learners possess the ability to construe and integrate patterns in nature. Lastly, it requires well-equipped schools with libraries providing access to the rich natural resources of South Africa. Unfortunately, most South African schools do not satisfy these conditions, especially those in poverty-stricken rural areas. ‘The consequence is that only the better-off will grasp the core concepts, thus perpetrating the unequal education dispensations of the past’ (Dempster & Hugo 2006:112).

Dempster and Hugo (2006:106) recognise improvements in both the Natural Sciences Learning Area Statement (Grades R-9) and the Life Sciences subject statement (Grades 9–12) over the old syllabus. They nonetheless point to the failure to integrate the various lines of evidence into a unified Darwinian theory of evolution and that different domains of knowledge are conflated and key concepts such as natural selection are misrepresented. In addition, the term evolution is only introduced in Grade 12, while both curriculum statements stress the recognition of alternative options, including faith-based and indigenous knowledge systems (Dempster & Hugo 2006):

Stears et al. (2016:1) document the concern of scientists that many teachers do not acknowledge the theory of evolution as a scientific body of testable evidence and, in conjunction with religious fundamentalists, strive to excise it from the curriculum, despite the fact that Africa, and specifically South Africa, have increasingly gained prominence in the anthropological world since 1925 as the result of critical fossil discoveries elucidating human evolution.

By its very nature, creationism demands the acceptance of a design teleology stance and thus negatively influences students’ understanding of science in general and evolutionary principles in particular. Creationist statements regarding this matter regularly spill over into the South African press, as evinced by regular letters to the Afrikaans media as documented (by the author) since 1981. These missives regularly include misleading and incorrect claims, further confusing the issue in the minds of learners and the public in general.

An example of this approach to education is set out in a letter by Marius Smit to the Afrikaans newspaper Rapport, in which he claims, ‘Science education at school undermines the religious convictions of children and biblical cosmology should be compulsory content in all subjects as it is explicitly grounded in science’. (Smit 2016:10 [author’s own translation]) Such a statement appears to resort within the framework of cognitive dissonance, as Smit is a Professor in Education Law and Fundamental Rights in Education at the North-We∆5st University in Potchefstroom, North West Province, South Africa. From an ethical perspective, it is imperative to recognise that the fundamental rights of learners, tertiary students, as well as the public at large, carry the entitlement to scientifically verified data concerning the cosmos in general and more particularly, evolution and the human condition. Non-substantiated claims based on aetiological creation myths from the Bible are not verified scientific data, as Smit claims. It is equally impossible to teach mathematics, or for that matter genetics, as portrayed in the Holy Writ, which is why reputable theologians point out on a regular basis that the Bible is not a scientific handbook.

Since the democratic transition of South Africa in 1994, it is unethical and totally unacceptable that any institution of higher learning or any group of citizens, religious or otherwise, deliberately limits the legal rights of young people to a verified, scientific understanding of the natural world. Without an evolutionary perspective, the progression of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in affected persons cannot be understood because HIV has an evolutionary origin and evolves by adapting to the human immune system. Fundamental to food security are the evolutionary relationships of plants and animals, as is the prevention of infections by organisms dwelling in domestic and wild animals.

A lack of scientific literacy, whether by choice or lack of proper educational practice, allows the repugnant fallacy of racial stereotypes to continue and deprives everyone of the knowledge and mechanisms of thought to counter these misconceptions:

The theory is a powerful unifying theme that links concepts from different fields of science, from geology to palaeontology and the various branches of biology, for example, taxonomy, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, human origins and relationships, and most lately, organoid research.

‘Recent research suggests that when a topic is at odds with one’s cultural identity, a greater understanding of that topic does not increase acceptance of that topic’ (Barnes et al. 2017:1). Research focusing on the resistance to contemporary controversial topics show that fact-based arguments are often ineffectual for increasing acceptance of facts about controversial topics, such as climate change and evolution. People who understand the arguments for evolution and climate change nonetheless tend to resist the validity of arguments that conflict with their cultural identity. The aim is therefore to employ a paradigm that realistically communicates scientific data in a non-confrontational way.

Educators have commented extensively on the deficiencies inherent in the South African school system, which include poorly conceived curricula, undertrained teachers lacking critical knowledge and efficient teaching strategies, an unwillingness to teach evolution, incorrect or deficient presentation of material foundational to evolution, as well as insufficient background support for teachers in poorly equipped schools. These conditions impair the teaching of subjects such as evolution, which is already considered controversial by many learners. According to Chikoko et al., an additional problem is the lack of training of the trainers (Chikoko et al. 2011:16).

Solving these issues primarily falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education and, disturbing as they are, forms an adjunct to the main concern, which are the problems generated by Christian fundamentalists when they oppose the teaching of evolution on the basis of a teleological stance and promulgate the concept of a young earth and the fixity of species:

In similar vein, Dempster and Hugo (2006:112) favour the option of ‘… directly and explicitly teaching the principles of evolution …’ to South African children of all cultural affiliations. However, presenting evolution as a fait accompli is often counterproductive, as learners from a creationist background automatically discount this approach.

However, there appears to be justification for employing less confrontational methods. Wingert et al. (2023:15) report that when discussing evolution in a non-confrontational manner, sensitive to the religious proclivities of creationist students, they initially exhibited qualified acceptance of evolution but later re-embraced their original convictions.

In an interesting experiment, Brown, Ronfard and Kelemen (2020) investigated the use of ‘… a teacher-led classroom-based storybook intervention for teaching natural selection in early elementary school’ (Brown et al. 2020:1). It was specifically developed for 7–9-year-old students in an effort to correct teleological explanations for adaptation. Their findings demonstrate the pervasiveness and efficacy of meaningful and thorough explanations of evolutionary concepts in elementary school. However, the experiment revealed the ubiquity and influence of teleology on children who were taught about natural selection, and they suggest that counterintuitive scientific explanations in all likelihood only suppress, but do not replace default teleological assumptions ‘… unless it is repeatedly reinforced and built upon’ (Brown et al. 2020:17). They also point out that developing educational programmes to improve scientific literacy from a young age is crucial ‘… in the current evolutionary context of rapid climatic and environmental change’ (Brown et al. 2020:17):

Shah (2019:11) is a proponent of constructivist learning, a student-centred approach, which has produced some remarkable successes. However, he simultaneously warns against complacency. This educational model encourages students to actively construct mental frameworks of the subject matter. Employing this option means that learning does not involve memorising an accumulation of random facts and regurgitating them during tests or exams. It rather promotes a meaningful understanding of the study material and the thoughtful application of concepts. The teacher is not excluded from this process, thereby compelling students to learn concepts on their own, but remains an integral component of the exercise, acting as facilitator and guide – ‘[t]hus creating a community of learners which includes the teacher’ (Shah 2019:11). Constructivist learning encourages students to develop and demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the subject matter, thus attaining higher standards of performance than is expected in regular tests, which only requires proof that they have grasped a set of predetermined facts or formulas in different disciplines. The latter approach is regarded as grossly inadequate as it denies students meaningful interaction with the study material:

He therefore suggests that less emphasis be placed on the simple acquisition of a set of pre-digested facts and concentrate much more on the ability to interpret and make sense of ideas and experiences that students encounter (Shah 2019:11).

Good constructivist teaching should be flexible and attend first and foremost to the actual needs of students and not just to the teachers’ perceptions of those needs. Shah (2019:11) also warns that constructivist teaching should not be confused with student-centred teaching, assuming that teachers who apply this approach have no content expertise. Pitfalls such as reducing learning to entertainment or requiring learners to teach themselves should be avoided as ‘… constructivist teaching can produce tremendous results when used correctly and judiciously; it can also lead to poor results and ineffective learning when it is misconstrued or misused’ (Shah 2019:12).

Perhaps a less confrontational and more constructivist option to realign creationist convictions towards a more reasonable biology-based interpretation would be to initiate sessions where learners with creationist convictions are encouraged to present their arguments and beliefs to their peers in open discussion. In this case, it is imperative that teachers should be familiar with creationist arguments and have a sound knowledge of biblical references to subjects such as origins, anatomy, mathematics, genetics, taxonomy and geology in order to responsibly facilitate such discussions. An important aspect of the discussion would be to invite creationist students to explain how their convictions relate to current scientific insights.

Evolution through natural selection represents one of the most significant advances in the entire history of our search to understand the natural world. Depriving learners of an educational grounding in evolutionary concepts is unethical and constitutes a serious limitation of their rights and opportunities to experience a responsible and rational learning environment.

Stears et al. (2016:1) point out that the non-acceptance of evolutionary processes biases biology teachers against teaching of evolution-based curricula. Extensive research, as already referred to, has shown the inverse relationship between fundamentalist religious convictions and the acceptance of evolutionary principles. If science programmes in South African schools correctly differentiate between religious teleology and scientific teleology, it could assist learners to differentiate between a responsible evolutionary approach in the biological sciences and cultural convictions. Currently, several issues prevent the implementation of these concepts.

Creationism and a teleological stance are present within the ranks of both educators and learners. Many South African teachers do not accept the theory of evolution. ‘They were expected to teach a topic they had not studied in their initial training, had no experience of teaching, and about which they held negative views’ (Stears et al. 2016:2). Consequently, teachers present evolutionary principles incorrectly because they lack the required background or because of a religious stance opposed to evolution. Teachers and learners who are religiously observant are also more opposed to the concept of evolution than their less religious colleagues.

The problem is exacerbated in rural areas where the incidence of poorly trained teachers and ill-equipped schools is the daily lot of many learners. It has been shown in this contribution that the science curriculum statements fail in delivering to learners a sound appreciation of evolutionary biology, leaving the anti-evolution teleological stance of students intact and possibly impairing their future in the biological sciences.

Stears et al. (2016:8) point out that South African biology teachers exhibit a broad spectrum of religious creeds, the tenets of which are interpreted as more important than the teaching of evolution, or their level of teaching experience. Given that the diversity of religious affiliations in South Africa reflects our heterogeneous society, they state: ‘Understanding the relationship between teachers’ religious affiliation and their positions on the creationist–evolutionist continuum is important if we wish to reduce the conflict teachers may experience when teaching evolution’ (Stears et al. 2016:8). In this respect, they propose the implementation of pre-service teacher education programmes and professional development programmes for in-service biology teachers.

Controversial subjects, if taught correctly, instil in learners the knowledge and skills they need to conduct fair, logical, democratic and ethically sound arguments around such issues. Understanding the historical relevance of human evolution and variation is the lynchpin of South Africa’s growing democracy, as it presents a rational foundation for respecting the heterogeneous nature of South African society. As a democratic state, and within the prescriptions of the Constitution, South Africa is obliged to present, through its Department of Education, valid and acceptable tuition in the natural sciences. Not complying with these foundational principles is denying the learners their legal rights to a functional education. Therefore, developing and implementing sound educational strategies, which reflect our evolutionary heritage, is both timely and necessary.