Teaching evolution in the context of science

There have already been some interesting threads about teaching evolution, but as my son is currently being taught evolution in a US High School (probably as I write) I thought I might share some observations on a real case.Pambolito is in 10th grade in Washington State and his Biology class has now moved on to discuss evolution. So far they covered two principal areas:
A history of how Darwin came to write "Origin of Species" - and Wallace gets an honourable mention.
A lot of work on natural selection, with a discussion of Mayr's neo-Darwinism.The work they do on natural selection is of interest. As a Biology class, they have much to learn, whether to do with evolution or not, about factors such as predation, environmental factors, ecological niches etc., and much of thbeir time is spent on the details of what these mean for organisms.Their work on Mayr's neo-Darwinian synthesis is interesting too, especially in the context of this board. They explicitly review observed facts (as mainstream science would have it) and inferences, making a clear distinction between the two. Their understanding of the limits of inference should be strong as they have already done several weeks' at the beginning of the year on deduction and inference, including much practical work.The teaching is such that an interested parent who had followed their child's studies would be perfectly capable of raising topics for discussion at home within the context of the study material.On the whole, I am very satisified with the teaching of the subject: it is interesting (very important for a 10th grader) and not too outdated.It does, however, present a simplified model of how speciation may occur and does emphasise natural selection. I myself do not consider natural selection to be the prime mover in speciation. But what it teaches is entirely in line with the simplified models of other processes that have already been taught. For example, the structure of the atom was taught as a simplified model (no quarks? no gluons? asked Dad incredulously), and the nature of chemical bonds was simplified (don't worry, you'll learn how it really works at University, said our chemist friend.) The teaching of evolution is no more simplified than any of these. They don't do a lot of Gdel in maths, either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
They don't do a lot of Gdel in maths, either.

---

Isn`t Gdels incompleteness theorum just the liar paradox dressed up for all systems?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Isn`t Gdels incompleteness theorum just the liar paradox dressed up for all systems?

---

It surely is - like Rugby is "just" a kind of football

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
It surely is - like Rugby is "just" a kind of football

---

Just really was the wrong word there....

It sounds a like good science teaching for the age group, and an excellent introduction to evolution. The fight for good science in schools involves not just opposing the Creationist/ID onslaught but also advocating good science teaching in general.

Actually, I do not see this presentation of the actual teaching by Mr. Pamboli as anything but touching on the best that evolution thinking can produce. Mayr's authority on speciation is something I have not even be able to completely seperate off as many birds as make up the idea. I have doubted species selection and have still not made up my mind on this possibility. I got bogged down starting to create an emprics for sympatry or geographic distribution but then did not know what to do for selection with the ring species exemplar. Still prefer Wight's simpe diagram to all the discussion of "founders" but I have not figured out the specific implication for geometry of species arrays databased and dont know if all can not be still reduced to isolation by distance thus elimiating the form and the reason to think of speciation in the first place. This is why I have been figureing on Galelio's impressed force and the source/sink electrotonic macrothermodynamics vortex cross IT-bio new XML language for the informatics of the future as guide to stop places but better for me not to enter my own proprietary language till the Dyson to my Feynmann appears. But who's to say he or she has not been appearing at least on this site.

I just completed tenth grade a couple weeks ago, and I took a biology class which sounds remarkably similar to the one your son had. I anticipated the evolution unit all year, hoping for some debates and "new stuff", and for my teacher to explain what evolution really is (favorable mutations being passed along) and isn't (a complete explanation of all life and completely incompatible with creationist views).However, the unit was decidedly anticlimactic.Several creationists were in my class, and my teacher never hit home the point that evolution doesn't nullify their ideas. Therefore, they refused to accept any of it and are still ignorant as to evolution. They also asked the question which gives me a headache every time I hear it - Why isn't creationism taught in schools?The class, besides antagonizing the creationists, was simplified to the point of being what everyone already could get from common sense - disregarding those who refused to accept it because it was called "evoution", of course. All we talked about was DNA passing through the generations. I was hoping for talks about evidence of evolution (geographic similarities but completely different wildlife, penicillin's relative inneffectiveness nowadays, etc) but those were missing, as well.I think that it would be interesting for classes to make use of what some students already know about evolution and hold informative debates. I read the Origin of Species in ninth grade and have watched shows and read web information regarding evolution, and feel that I could have contributed to the class's understanding if I'd been able to make a non-instigatory statement.Even without class discussions, I feel that evolution is an important topic for teens to be introduced to. It gives them a chance to form their own opinions and find out the truth about evolution. Many people have gross misconceptions of the topic.

Yes Jaako, even most scientists know very, very little about evolution. And they all equate the moths and finches as evidence that life on earth really could have evolved fom simpler forms.The most amazing thing is that most PhDed biologists also know almost nothing about macroevolution. In fact, the scientific literature has very little in it on genuinely macroevoltionary topics. I'm serious.The other point is that you of course are well read on the topic so your 10th grade class was too simplistic for you. It may not have been for the much of the rest of the class. But I agree that mainstream science rarely if ever gets to the crux of the matter and they never, ever point out that modern creationism is completely compatible with natural selection. Don't worry, just learn to live with it and take your opportunities when you can to correct these mistaken views.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Yes Jaako, even most scientists know very, very little about evolution. And they all equate the moths and finches as evidence that life on earth really could have evolved fom simpler forms.[/QUOTE]

​

Wow, what a sweeping statement, TB. Perhaps you would like to back this assertion about what "most scientists" know with some evidence.

​

quote:

---

The most amazing thing is that most PhDed biologists also know almost nothing about macroevolution. In fact, the scientific literature has very little in it on genuinely macroevoltionary topics. I'm serious.

---

​

You are also making assertions that you have not provided evidence for.

​

Please define "genuine macroevolutionary topics", please.

​

quote:

---

The other point is that you of course are well read on the topic so your 10th grade class was too simplistic for you. It may not have been for the much of the rest of the class. But I agree that mainstream science rarely if ever gets to the crux of the matter

---

​

There is a very large difference between what is taught in many high school science classrooms and what is going on in the professional scientific research community. Science education below the college level is mediocre, overall, in the US, because of the watering down of textbooks and curricula due to the influence of religious groups.

​

There are several large companies that control what is put into most textbooks, and they are based in states like Texas, which is smack in the middle of the Bible Belt.

​

[QUOTE]and they never, ever point out that modern creationism is completely compatible with natural selection. Don't worry, just learn to live with it and take your opportunities when you can to correct these mistaken views.[/b]

---

Why should Creationism, a religious belief, be mentioned as compatible with natural selection in a science class?Many religions, worldviews, and philosophies are compatible with natural selection. Should all of them be mentioned in science class?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Yes Jaako, even most scientists know very, very little about evolution. And they all equate the moths and finches as evidence that life on earth really could have evolved fom simpler forms.

---

Interesting how the group of people who created the concept, and who base their work on it, can know so little about it. [QUOTE][b]
The most amazing thing is that most PhDed biologists also know almost nothing about macroevolution. In fact, the scientific literature has very little in it on genuinely macroevoltionary topics. I'm serious. [/QUOTE][/b]Maybe that is because what creationists call macro-evolution is nothing but what creationist call micro-evolution-- and everyone else calls just plain evolution-- over large time frames? The distiction is a means for the creationist to get around the fact that evolution can be demonstrated in a lab. If you want macro vx. micro to be taken seriously you need to demonstrate that the two are fundamentally different. And you can't. Just call that a challenge.

quote:

---

But I agree that mainstream science rarely if ever gets to the crux of the matter

---

What is the crux, TB?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Schraf, I work in a life sciences department (sorry Percy, but it's relevant to my pioint ) at a large mainstream Australian university. I know what I said is true. I lecture to 2nd and 3rd year students. I actaully teach evolution! (I qualify my statements with the phrase 'evoltuionary/taxonomic' relationships, I'm actaully very fair about it.) I know what our undergraduates are taught, I know what textbooks they read and I know what happens when they become graduate students (they specialise). The amount of macroevoltuion taught in uni courses/textbooks is near zero. It really is pepperred moths and finches. I am truly not kidding. I recently dropped in our uni bookshop and carefully went through a half dozen biology textbooks. Almost zero macroevoltuion evn in the non-Bible belt Australian texts.I would define genuinely macroevoltuionary topics as those that discuss the origin of genuinely novel features. This is best done at the molecular level where things are more unambiguous but there are very few well documented examples of the origin of novel anatomical features. The literature is almost empty of these discussions.I have searched in vain for a good discussion of the origin of protein families for example. I can not find it in Medline. I'm sure there are one or two but even if there are there are very, very few papers on this stuff. Behe points out that the 1000 papers published in the Journal of Molecualr Evoltuion over the last decade can be split into 3 catgories: (i) 5% mathematical, (ii) 15% chemical evoltuion and (iii) 80% sequence comparisons. In those 1000 papers he couldn't find a single paper which showed evidence or even simply proposed a step by step series of events whiich could have led to any molecualr system.The alternative of creation is dismissed with a single line in many biology texts without mentioning that it could be compatible with natural selection.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-26-2002]

John99.5% (stat plucked out of the air) of PhDed biologists do not work on evoltuion John!I define macroevoltuion via studies on the origin of novelty and there is very, very little of this in the literature. I do not search for the word macroevoltuion (although when one does there are 61 hits in Medline - pretty amazing for a word that deosn't exist in the mainstream lit).Here's a paper which shows there is a clear micro/macro diff:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11258393&dopt=AbstractThe crux of the matter is the origin of novelty and evolutionists hardly address this issue. See Behe's study of 1000 papers in JME in my above post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Schraf, I work in a life sciences department (sorry Percy, but it's relevant to my pioint ) at a large mainstream Australian university. I know what I said is true. I lecture to 2nd and 3rd year students. I actaully teach evolution! (I qualify my statements with the phrase 'evoltuionary/taxonomic' relationships, I'm actaully very fair about it.) I know what our undergraduates are taught, I know what textbooks they read and I know what happens when they become graduate students (they specialise). The amount of macroevoltuion taught in uni courses/textbooks is near zero. It really is pepperred moths and finches. I am truly not kidding. I recently dropped in our uni bookshop and carefully went through a half dozen biology textbooks. Almost zero macroevoltuion evn in the non-Bible belt Australian texts.[/QUOTE]

​

Well, no offense to Australia, but there is a reason people from all over the world send their children to American universities.

​

I'm not saying that I don't believe that you work at an Austrailian University, but I'd still like specific evidence of your assertion that most scientists don't know anything about Evolution.

​

quote:

---

I would define genuinely macroevoltuionary topics as those that discuss the origin of genuinely novel features.

---

​

Such as...?

​

quote:

---

This is best done at the molecular level where things are more unambiguous but there are very few well documented examples of the origin of novel anatomical features. The literature is almost empty of these discussions.

​

I have searched in vain for a good discussion of the origin of protein families for example. I can not find it in Medline. I'm sure there are one or two but even if there are there are very, very few papers on this stuff. Behe points out that the 1000 papers published in the Journal of Molecualr Evoltuion over the last decade can be split into 3 catgories: (i) 5% mathematical, (ii) 15% chemical evoltuion and (iii) 80% sequence comparisons. In those 1000 papers he couldn't find a single paper which showed evidence or even simply proposed a step by step series of events whiich could have led to any molecualr system.

---

​

What about Doolittle's work on Blood clotting?

​

Are you actually faulting Biologists for not having all knowledge right away?

​

Since you brought up Behe, I'll ask the question that I have asked many times and never got an answer to regarding ID:

​

How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural system that we don't understand yet?

---

The alternative of creation is dismissed with a single line in many biology texts without mentioning that it could be compatible with natural selection.[/QUOTE]As well it should be, because it is a religious belief. I'm not sure why it's even given that one line.You didn't answer my question, so I will repeat it:Many religions, worlviews, and philosophies are compatible with natural selection. Should each and every one be mentioned in the science classroom? Why or why not?You are making an error in thinking that Christian Fundamentalist Creationism is a competing scientific theory to the ToE. The problem is, Creationism is religious dogma, not science.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-27-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]John99.5% (stat plucked out of the air) of PhDed biologists do not work on evoltuion John! [/QUOTE][/b]What field of biology does not deal with evolution of some level?.5% (stat plucked out of the air)? [QUOTE][b]I define macroevoltuion via studies on the origin of novelty and there is very, very little of this in the literature.[/QUOTE][/b]I looked up novelty/evolution on Google and got 62,000 results.

quote:

---

I do not search for the word macroevoltuion (although when one does there are 61 hits in Medline - pretty amazing for a word that deosn't exist in the mainstream lit).

---

Granted, but it really sidesteps the point, which is that there isn't a lot of difference between the two - micro and macro-- except scale. The lines beetween the two are not clearly demarcated. And this despite the abstract you cited, which may or may not support your position. The abstract contains not enough information.

quote:

---

The crux of the matter is the origin of novelty and evolutionists hardly address this issue.

---

How is it that I can sit at my desk here at home and find 13,200 results about the origin of novelty (Google-- evolution origin novelty), yet evolutionists hardly address the issue?Take care------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

SchrafOf course PhDed biologists know a lot about evolution - the fossil record, natural selection etc. But they are unaware of the near zero extent to which macroevoltuion is studied.I would define the origin of the immune system or multicellularity as examples of novel systems. But it works for almost any cellular system - as I have referenced elsewhere, mnay cellular systems are characterised by the presence of new gene families which bare no resemblances to any other gene in the genome.Tell me about Doolittle's work on Blood clotting.I'm not faulting biologists for not having all the answers right away. But there are many systems which are almost completely understood at the molecualr level for a decade. Systems biology people are selling software that mimics many of the pathways of yeast! There are almost no papers attempting to explain the origin of tehse sytems. If you believe they will come, fine for you.Your question 'How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural system that we don't understand yet? ' is answerd by Behe via his elephant analogy which you wont like. He agrees that nothing is impossible but saying that biocehmistry is not designed is like a team of detectives studying the crushing murder of a man not noticing the elephant standing in the middle of the room. It is the creaitionist use of Occaam's razor.If life evovled it evovled novelty non-stop via an unkwon mechanism. If you want to call this a god of the gaps arguement then feel free but I'll continue to use Occaam's and Sherlock Holmes' style reasoning.Because you are so 'scientific' you feel that it is silly to examine the possibility that a religion explains the origin of life even in the midst of evidence of design. That seems quite fool hardy if you can let me say that as I would to a friend.I do not ask that the Judea-Christian religion be mentioned in the class room. I do personally feel that the data sceintifically justifies the discussion of the evidence for design of life and a rapid origin for the geological column. But I will not go and campaign for this.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2002]