Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson Plan

Dan,About a year ago, I asked one of our resident creationists (former evcforum moderator, to boot), to provide a lesson plan that covered the high points of "scientific creationism". I actually had a legit reason - my daughter's school had a bit of class time in the IB Biology curriculum for creationism, and the professor asked my help in putting something together.Tranquility Base responded adequately, I think. Here's the lesson plan he came up with:

quote:

---

Version 1.5
By Tranquility Base
Registered member
Creation vs. Evolution Forum

​

October 2002
NOTES
1. This is a feasibility study in creation education.

​

2. Although a specific textbook would be helpful to educators, until something specific appears along these lines, this outline, together with mainstream and existing creationist books and web resources, should enable an instructive pair of lessons to be prepared.

​

3. Rebuttals of obvious evolutionary counter arguments are not included for the sake of brevity.

​

4. A serious attempt has been made to restrict both the details and interpretations presented to either agreed facts or arguably logical steps so that it can be, in the best case, presented bias-free by educators.

​

5. There are no (i.e. zero) conditions on the reuse of any of this material in whole or part except of course for any attempt to restrict conditions on the open reuse of this rendition or its parts. Citation is not required or requested.

​

LESSON 1
---------------
* INTRODUCTION
It is possible that the life forms on earth are due to creation by a higher intelligence at some point or points in the history of our planet. Although the higher intelligence is presumably not able to be studied by science it is not necessarily unscientific to study features of life forms which reveal signs of creation. Discuss the possibility that mainstream science unjustifiably extrapolated from Darwin's evidence of small scale evolution to 'macroevolution'. Introduce the concepts of microevolution as the fine-tuning of existing traits and macroevolution as the introduction of new traits (as defined by mainstream Erwin, see Lesson 2).

​

* DISTINCTNESS OF KINDS & ANATOMIES
The tree of life constructed by comparing anatomies highlights differences as much as it highlights similarities. The distinctness of the basic types of organisms, anatomical features and genetic parts are approximately what one would expect following the creation of basic kinds for distinct purposes followed by the operation of Darwin's natural selection, generations of reproduction and hybridization. Examples of anatomical novelties (e.g.: multicellularity, respiration, circulation, the nervous system, the backbone, jaws of jawed fish, limbs, legs, wings, the shelled egg of birds/reptiles, the placenta of mammals, feathers of birds) that distinguish higher groups. Examples of distinct kinds identifiable by hybridization criteria (e.g.: Canidae = dogs/wolves/foxes/jackals, Equidae = horses/donkeys/zebra & Funariaceae = mosses).

​

* SYSTEMATIC JUMPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD
The fossil record similarly displays distinct anatomies of extinct organisms and the fossil gaps predicted by Darwin have generally not been filled in by paleontologists digging for over a century. Although some examples of organisms with mixed features such as whale-like animals with legs or reptiles with mammalian features can be found there is still a systematic lack of evidence of gradual transitions. The lack of good examples of gradual transitions has led to the well known evolutionary theory of 'Punctuated Equilibrium' which explains that evolution occurs in jumps in small populations in such a way that the transitionary fossils are rarely left behind. Alternatively it is possible that the kinds of organisms simply cover a very large 'space' of anatomies but were still created separately as suggested by the gaps. Examples: Cambrian explosion, backbones, limbs, digits, wings, bat sonar.

​

* FOSSIL ORDER
The fossil order is approximately in agreement with evolutionary trees generated from anatomical and molecular similarity which in turn are approximately complexity arrangements. However, in many cases the trees predict 'ghost' lineages where organisms are predicted to have existed but are not present in the fossil record for up to hundreds of millions of years of supposed geological time. The creation possibilities for explanation of the fossil order include (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilized organisms at different layers based on the interpretation of much of the seawater and freshwater layers on land as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) explains the fossil order through an evolution-like creation order. Although some good evidence of catastrophic formation of the geological column exists (including fossil graveyards and strong ripple effects evident in many layers), option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence currently, that this could generate the observed fossil oderings. Discuss potential mechanisms of fossil ordering: Relative mobility of organisms, water sorting properties and ecological zoning as well as problems such as the stratagraphical separation of dinosaurs and advanced mammals.

​

* CONVERGENT FEATURES
Anatomical features of organisms don't always appear in a 'monophyletic' fashion meaning that a feature wont always only appear once and then in every organism in that 'branch'. Vision and flight both appear in multiple parts of the tree separately. In the evolutionary scenario wings and eyes have each separately evolved on multiple occasions. There are hints that such 'convergences' may be too unlikely for evolution and special creation easily explains the appearance of anatomical features for designed purposes. At a finer level, all trees constructed by evolutionists have problems with 'convergences' with features appearing and reappearing at multiple positions along branches suggesting that instead, each creature was individually created. Large scale examples: wings in insects/dinosaurs/birds/bats. Eyes. Small scale example: show a tree with convergent features.

​

LESSON 2
-------------
* ROLE OF NATURAL SELECTION
Natural selection is the process by which a variable population of organisms can change through selection by the environment. As Charles Darwin noticed, a migrating population of finches containing a mix of traits will have its mix changed at the new location due to differential survivability. This 'microevolution' works on existing traits (and underlying genes) and in the creation model operates as it does in the evolutionary model - as a fine tuning mechanism and source of speciation. In the creation model the extrapolation from beak shape changes to the origin of beaks is considered to be unjustifiable as the former requires no new underlying traits whereas the latter does. Discuss the Galapagos finches, artificial dog breeding, agricultural breeding (wild mustard leads to broccoli, cabbage & cauliflower by selecting for features including leaf, stem and flower size) and viral resistance.

​

* DISTINCTNESS IN GENETICS
Genes are the lists of DNA bases that store information about our anatomical characteristics or traits. Blue/brown eyes, type A/B/O blood or short/tall are variants on the traits of eye color, blood type and height. These variants are called 'alleles'. A blue eyed person has two copies of the 'blue' allele - a gene with DNA that gives blue eyes. A tall person carries a 'tall' growth factor allele in his DNA. But the DNA is not a random series of 'bases'. Most random sequences result in a useless gene. So although it is very easy for a 'type A blood gene' to mutate into a 'type B blood gene' the genes for height or eye color have no similarity to those that code for blood type. Height, eye color and blood type genes all code for proteins that do a particular biochemical job. So although natural selection (an example of microevolution) and mutations can easily change alleles within a trait they can't easily do this from one trait to another. Some mainstream published research agrees that if macroevolution were true it would be 'more than repeated rounds of microevolution' (Erwin DH. Evol Dev. 2000 vol 2, pp78-84.). Discuss the issues with respect to information, gain, loss vs. allelic change.

​

* GENES CODE FOR PROTEINS WHICH DO VERY SPECIFIC JOBS & THE SYSTEMS APPEAR TO REQUIRE A MINIMAL NUMBER OF THEM
The distinct gene 'families' do very specific jobs in cells and organisms. That is why most mutations are disadvantageous or simply change the 'strength' of an already existing function. This is why it is easy to lose a function or change the shape of a beak or become resistant to a drug through mutations. For the same reason nobody has seen the evolution of new systems in bacteria after millions of bacterial generations in the laboratory. Not only is the evolution of a new gene type difficult as described above, but anatomical, physiological and cellular systems appear to require a minimal number of such parts before they can work. Example of protein jobs: the ribosome, an enzyme & hemoglobin. All organisms have a ribosome to make proteins but only organisms that transport oxygen or electrons have hemoglobin family members. A simple example from M. Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box'. Discuss issue of alternative use of parts in the evolutionary scenario as a hypothesis.

​

* CONCLUSIONS
The facts of 'homologies', a tree of life, convergences, organisms with mixed features, fossil order, genetic flexibility and natural selection are mostly agreed on by all. These facts are however interpreted differently in the creation and evolutionary models. What is seen as evidence of common descent can be viewed as evidence of a common creator. In the creation model the similarities, differences and complexities of life are seen as evidence of a common creator that is consistent with the known adaptive processes of biology. So although all of life shares certain genes, cellular systems and anatomical features, and although these can adapt to the environment, organisms also contain 'group specific' genes, cellular systems and anatomical features suggestive of creation.

---

I'd be interested to hear what our resident creationists think about TB's efforts. For reference, the professor decided NOT to use the syllabus, primarily because it would have taken too much time for her to develop refutations (even though I offered to help), and present them in class. They had a couple of snow days (in Ukraine!!!), and got behind on the "required" lessons. Too bad, I think it would have been a very worthwhile endeavor. I mean, TB's lesson plans represent about the "best" plan I've seen from a creationist, so destroying it in class would have been useful for the students as an example of good science vs pseudoscience.

keith: Do me two favors, please.1. Give the "argument from quote mine" a rest. Nobody's interested in playing that game here. Even on the thread Moose closed, it is highly unlikely I would have responded to your massive cut-and-paste of spurious quotations which were either out-of-context, out-of-date, unverifiable, secondary or tertiary sources, or simply wrong in light of current science. How it works here is: YOU develop an argument. Provide verifiable citations in support of your argument. Then respond directly to refutations or discussion of your argument by addressing the points/counterpoints/questions raised by your respondants.2. Take your fossil argument to an appropriate thread, or open a new topic. My suggestion would be open a new topic in the Evolution forum. However, you're still going to need to develop a specific argument that doesn't rely exclusively on quotations or someone elses' essay.Thanks.