Hey Percy
But on the other, conservatives were able to add several amendments that were extremely specific to evolution, like "one that would compel science teachers to instruct students about aspects of the fossil record that do not neatly fit with the idea of species’ gradually changing over time, like the relatively sudden appearance of some species and the fact that others seem to remain unchanged for millions of years."
I still go with Ken Miller on this.
This is a teaching moment, and it gives the teacher an opportunity cite Darwin on his discussion of the fossil record, his explanation for gaps, expand it to a discussion of Punctuated Equilibrium, whether these instances are indeed "sudden" or due to faulty record keeping in the fossil record, and then look at whether these two PRATTs do or do not fit with the theory of evolution. Then they can explain fitness in terms of ecology, such that if ecology is not changing that there is no selection pressure to change, rather there is selection to maintain an average phenotype, but if the ecology changes that there will be selection to change to match.
... "as groups questioning Darwinism have invoked the mandate in raising objections to evolution’s being taught to the exclusion of other theories." So the majority was finally able to overturn the mandate, but at the cost of amendments that single out evolution by requiring characterizations of scientific uncertainty where there is none.
Then where is the problem with teaching the uncertainty - aka scientific tentativity? What does skeptic mean and what is the difference between an open minded skeptic and one who has already decided a conclusion but
pretends skepticism of (only) contradictory evidence.
Talk about the assumptions of science, that the evidence is reflective of a true reality, and that properly understanding the evidence means understanding reality. That we can assume the evidence is true or we can assume the evidence is false. Does a scientific theory assume the evidence is false? Does it assume the evidence is true? Or does it test the evidence to see if it is true or false.
Trot out the other theories:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml
quote:
While the Greeks did not specifically refer to their concepts as "evolution", they did have a philosophical notion of descent with modification. Several different Greek philosophers subscribed to a concept of origination, arguing that all things originated from water or air. Another common concept was the idea that all things descended from one central, guiding principle. Aristotle suggests a transition between the living and the nonliving, and theorizes that in all things there is a constant desire to move from the lower to the higher, finally becoming the divine. (See Evolution from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
This
greek theory after all is where the concept of "Spontaneous Generation" came from. Now you can teach the fundamental difference between abiogenesis and evolution and show how evolution does not require a single population of original ancestors, but can start with any number of original ancestor populations.
This is also where the concept of an "evolutionary ladder" came from, so it is an opportunity to discuss that concept.
quote:
During medieval times, the idea of evolution was quite out of fashion, since the time was dominated by the Christian theory of special creation. This idea, which argued that all living things came into existence in unchanging forms due to divine will, was notably in opposition to the concept of evolution.
Now you can note that the earlier greek concept of descent with modification has been discarded to fit a theological interpretation, not evidence, and that since that time creationism has be forced to re-incorporate variation and adaptation and the separation of distinct populations with subsequent descent with modification into different forms.
Then you can teach how the objective evidence of reality, the fossil record of life on earth in the past, and the stages of life as they occurred in the fossil record. Does the fossil record support the Christian theory of a singular special creation, or does it support the Greek theory of spontaneous appearance of different species at different times.
quote:
Medieval thinking was also, oddly enough, confused by the idea of spontaneous generation, which stated that living things can appear fully formed from inorganic matter. In this view, maggots came from rotting meat, frogs came from slime, etc. This sort of a concept prevented both genetic thinking and speculation about evolution or descent with modification. Nevertheless, a few philosophers theorized about some sort of teleological principle by which species might derive from a divine form.
This is another variation of "special creation," one that adopts the earlier Greek theory of the spontaneous appearance of new species. These newly appeared species would then have been in unchanging forms due to divine will.
With the later (post Darwin) adoption of variation and adaptation, and the separation of distinct populations with subsequent descent with modification into different forms, we can see that this concept appears to fit the fossil record and the evidence of life on earth more closely than before. One can also show that this also has required substantial modification of the original concept of a single special creation of all life forms.
Thus you can point out how ideas and concepts change to fit the evidence, that this is how theories work in science, with new and better fitting approximations replacing older ones or regulating them to special conditions. Discuss how the scientific method was developed.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_1.htm
quote:
Late in the 18th century, a small number of European scientists began to quietly suggest that life forms are not fixed. The French mathematician and naturalist, George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon actually said that living things do change through time. He speculated that this was somehow a result of influences from the environment or even chance. He believed that the earth must be much older than 6000 years. In 1774, in fact, he speculated that the earth must be at least 75,000 years old. He also suggested that humans and apes are related.
And now you can bring in Mendel and genetics, nested hierarchies and the evidence for descent from a common ancestral population. You can show the methodology used by Mendel to show how scientific investigation was developing to evidence based theory.
quote:
Another late 18th century closet-evolutionist was Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of the well known 19th century naturalist, Charles Darwin. Erasmus was an English country physician, poet, and amateur scientist. He believed that evolution has occurred in living things including humans, but he only had rather fuzzy ideas about what might be responsible for this change. He wrote of his ideas about evolution in poems and a relatively obscure two volume scientific publication entitled Zoonomia; or, the Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). In this latter work, he also suggested that the earth and life on it must have been evolving for "millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind."
This is an opportunity to discuss Wallace and his theories of biogeography, the Wallace Line and the Wallace Effect.
quote:
The first evolutionist who confidently and very publicly stated his ideas about the processes leading to biological change was a French protégé of the Comte de Buffon. He was Jean-Baptiste Chevalier de Lamarck. Unfortunately, his theory about these processes was incorrect.
Then you can teach
why Lamarkism is incorrect, what the evidence shows. You can also raise the specter of Haeckle, and the etchings of fetal development and discuss the current state of science on this issue.
You can teach how the
theory of acquired characteristics and the theory that
ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny were falsified, how the scientific method was developed to test concepts rather than just propose explanations.
Then you can move on to Darwin and into modern biology, you can use modern pictures (see Ken Miller textbook) of fetal development to show the preservation of ancestral traits in the development of different species and the adaptation of previous features to new uses. Talk about ring species and reproductive isolation in dog breeding, and the modern fields of genetics, population dynamics ...
Is that a bad thing?
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
™ Version 4.2
