science curriculum, evolutiion and NCLB

[rodeodance]

....Evolutionary scientists have fought against such sentiment for decades.
''This is such old-hat stuff," said Harvard emeritus professor Ernest Mayr, who at age 100 is one of the titans of evolutionary science.

Mayr is adamant that antievolutionary arguments, even those that don't directly mention religion, have no place in public schools.

''What it really amounts to is a break with our Constitution, which tells you that you should keep religion out of public life," he said.

Another major figure in the field, Harvard professor Edward O. Wilson, said the current challenges to evolution are fringe movements, noting that Pope John Paul II, in a 1996 statement, acknowledged that evolutionary scientists had amassed considerable evidence for their theory......


"http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2004/11/16/evolution_foes_see_opening_to_press_fight_in_schools/"


Evolution foes see opening to press fight in schools
By Raja Mishra, Globe Staff | November 16, 2004

A long-running American cultural clash has flared yet again, with a trial in suburban Atlanta this month over teaching evolution in public schools. Several Georgia parents are challenging a local school board's decision to require biology textbooks to include a prominently placed label stating that evolution is ''not a fact."

The Georgia case is the first to land in court, but this year alone 13 states have had challenges to teaching evolution in schools. With the new federal No Child Left Behind education law mandating a broad review of science curriculum in every state over the next two years, those challenges may accelerate, as religious activists and evolution opponents seize on opportunities to shape guidelines on what public school students learn about the natural world.

c

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Evolution is a fact. The science behind Evolution is FACT!

Creation if a "fairytale" made by men.

[Liberal Veteran]

3. The simple fact is that evolution doesn't speak to the existance of God...

...or the non-existance of God.

Intelligent design "theory", no matter how much psuedoscientific bullshit you heap on top of it, speaks to the existance of a creator and thus religion.

[sangh0]

8. The other simple fact is that evolution is NOT a "fact"

It's a scientific theory, and if you have confidence in science, you should not be confused into thinking that a "scientific theory" is something less than a fact.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. Be cafeful to separate "evolution" from "natural selection"

Evolution, which describes life's forms changing over time, is as much of a fact as anything which is observable; I have two legs. There is a sky. Life has changed over time.

Natural selection is one theory of how evolution occurs. But evolution itself is a fact.

[sangh0]

14. Evolution does not describe how life forms change over time

Evolution is the study of changes in the distribution/frequency of genes in a population over time. And it's not a fact, it's a theory. That's why it's called "The Theory of Evolution"

Natural selection is one theory of how evolution occurs. But evolution itself is a fact.

No, natural selection is one of the factors that cause the distribution/frequency of genes to change in a population over time. And evolution is still a theory.

[DrWeird]

17. Evolution explains how humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.

That's what fundies have a problem with. And that's a scientific fact.

[sangh0]

19. Circular definition

Evolution explains how humans evolved...

And evolution doesn't explain that. Evolution, combined with genetics and sociobiology explain how humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.

[DrWeird]

21. Splitting hairs.

Evolution explains the origins of homo sapiens. That is they evolved from an ape-like ancestor. And that ape-like ancestor and every other living thing evolved from a common ancestor.

That's a scientific fact. Just like the Earth is round or that the holocaust happened. You'd have to be full of bullshit to deny it.

[sangh0]

23. Wrong again

Evolution explain how and why the frequency of genes in a population changes over time.

[DrWeird]

25. It's becoming clear you're just throwing around random terms...

without really understanding what you're talking about.

Evolution

1. a. gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

b. The process of developing.

c. Gradual development.


2. Biology.
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.


3. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

4. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

[sangh0]

30. Wrong again

The first three definitions are "common usage" definitions, and not specific to biology.

2a is THE biological definition use by evolutionary scientists.

2b - is for phylogenists

3 - Physics definition

4 - mathematical definition

Since we're talking biology here, the only appropriate definition to be used is the biological definition. Biologists isn't about extracting the root of a quantity.

[DrWeird]

34. The definitions that we're using in these discussions..

falls under 2b. Evolution of all life from a common ancestor Vs. God did it.

Try to keep up.

[ProfessorPlum]

24. No, listen closely

You are applying imprecise ideas to terms that have precise, but different meanings.

"evolution" means that life changes forms over time. Period. At some point in the past, there were trilobytes in the oceans. Now there are none. That is a change in the forms of life over time. That is evolution. And that is a fact. The forms that are here on earth now are different from what has come in the past.

There are theories that describe both "how" and "why" evolution occurs. Natural selection is one of them. It has postulates about mutations arising in populations, and differential reproduction rates. It is a very well supported theory.

Colloquially, the "theory of evolution" you are thinking of is probably the idea that, since people are also a form of life, they have also changed over time. The fossil record supports this theory. It is less certain than the general fact of life itself changing over time, as far as being supported with physical data. (But it is actually very well supported indeed).

"Evolution" is not the study of anything. You mean evolutionary biology. Evolution is a fact which theories like natural selection attempt to explain.

[sangh0]

31. Wrong

"evolution" means that life changes forms over time. Period

That's the "common usage" definition, and NOT the one used by evolutionary scientists.

When talking biology, evolution is not about how life forms change. That's genetics. We're talking about how the distribution of GENES change.

That is a change in the forms of life over time. That is evolution. And that is a fact.

No, if I am exposed to radiation that mutates a gene of mine, resulting is some change in bodily form, that's GENETICS, not evolution. Genetics is the study of how genes affect life forms. Evolution is more about how those genes get passed through reproduction.

There are theories that describe both "how" and "why" evolution occurs. Natural selection is one of them. It has postulates about mutations arising in populations, and differential reproduction rates. It is a very well supported theory.

No, The Theory of Evolution describes how certain factors (such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc) influence evolution's course. Those factors aren't theories themselves. That natural selection influences evolution is considered a scientific fact.

Colloquially, the "theory of evolution" you are thinking of is probably the idea that, since people are also a form of life, they have also changed over time. The fossil record supports this theory. It is less certain than the general fact of life itself changing over time, as far as being supported with physical data. (But it is actually very well supported indeed).

This is all true, and I appreciate your using the qualifier "Colloquially"

"Evolution" is not the study of anything. You mean evolutionary biology. Evolution is a fact which theories like natural selection attempt to explain.

Evolution is a theory not a fact. That "evolution has happened" is a fact as it has been proven that the frequency of genes HAS changed in populations over time. The FACT that evolution has happened is part of the proof that evolution is deserving of the title "scientific theory"

[ProfessorPlum]

32. ???

"That natural selection influences evolution is considered a scientific fact."

There are a lot of things that evolutionary biologists assume to be true, but you are not being precise with your terms here.

One of the things that modern evolutionary biologists hold to be true is that genes are related to biology.

But the observation of the fact of evolution happened 80 or so years before we even knew about DNA. The idea of the "gene", something that was the physically transmitted form of heritable traits, preceded that by many years, but still came after the observation of evolution. I maintain that evolution does not require any reference to genetic changes for definition.

The "gene theory of evolution" is another theory that tries to explain the "how" and the "why" of the fact that life changes forms over time. And I agree with you that it is a very well supported theory by now. We have traced much of the genetic machinery and are even beginning to understand quite a lot of it.

"No, if I am exposed to radiation that mutates a gene of mine, resulting is some change in bodily form, that's GENETICS, not evolution"

We're not talking about how one organism changes over time, in response to senescence or outside forces. We are talking about the change in the makeup of all of the forms of life on the planet (and presumably beyond). That is evolution.

[sangh0]

33. IMO, you aren't being precise with the terms

You are using more than one definition of the word "evolution"; the biological definition and the "colloquial" definition.

Since we are talking about the science of evolution, we should be using the definition that's used by science, and not the layperson's definition.

We're not talking about how one organism changes over time, in response to senescence or outside forces. We are talking about the change in the makeup of all of the forms of life on the planet (and presumably beyond). That is evolution.

Correct with one minor adjustment - it should read "...We are talking about the change in the GENETIC makeup..."

And again, evolution, as it's defined by biologists, is not about the changes in the makeup of all forms of life. It's about the genetic changes in a population over time. Genetic changes do NOT always lead to changes in the physical life form, but they still are a concern of evolution, because evolution is primarily concerned with the changes in genes, and not the changes in the body.

[ProfessorPlum]

35. That's silly

there is no need to bring genetics or genetic changes into the discussion at all. In fact, I see no reason to talk about the mechanism of evolution whatsoever.

The idea of evolution, the observation that life changed over time, existed well before the idea of genes ever did. Why drag genes into this discussion at all? The observation that life changed over time is just that, a fact, an observation.

Genes, heredity, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, speciation, kinship theories of behavior, etc. are all just a set of theories that have grown up to explain why and how life changes over time.

What aren't you getting? We aren't talking about the science of evolution at all, at least I'm not. We are talking about the fact that life changes over time. There are lots of theories about how.

[damntexdem]

20. Yes, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

But the issue is that the anti-science folks denigrate it as 'just a theory.' They aim to undermine all of science, but hate evolution most of all, and see it as the best place to attack.

Check here for disclaimer statements for science textbooks: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/. ;-)

[DrWeird]

12. Yes, just like the holocaust is only a historical theory.

There's plenty of people who argue against it. Let's teach the kids both sides of the story.

:eyes:

[sangh0]

15. History isn't science

And scientific facts are different than historical facts.

[DrWeird]

16. touche

:eyes:

[kwolf68]

2. Up their ass

I'll home school my kids to teach them science.

These same people thought the earth was flat at one time. They should not be taken seriously, but seemingly have immense power. What clowns.

[Brotherjohn]

4. "These same people thought the earth was flat at one time."

I'm sure many of them are re-assessing that idea as we speak.

[Surikat]

6. teaching evolution...

I found myself annoyed that the biology segment on evolution that my son went through in HS two years ago presented the "theory of evolution" pretty much unchanged from how Darwin wrote about it in Origin of the Species. The textbook and public school lectures gave you the impression that the theory of evolution itself hadn't evolved in the 130 odd years since "Origin". There was absolutely nothing about the whole notion of "punctuated evolution" that Stephen Gould proposed some thirty years ago that has turned the whole scientific community upside down. You'd think that nothing had come along to change Darwin's original "natural selection" notion.

I follow the evolution debate in the scientific literature. It is tremendously exciting and in a rapid transition currently. It's little wonder that foolishness like "creation science" creeps into curricula when evolutionary theory is taught the way it is in most public schools like it was some fool "law" handed down by some not-God instead of the vigorous scientific debate that it is.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. I tell people we are homeschooling

our three kids because we are afraid "they will get too much religion in the public schools". I always say that as a little joke, but I'm "kidding on the square".

[Roland99]

5. These fundie dumbasses confuse Evolution with the Origin of Life

Dumbasses.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. "evolution", the changing of biological forms over time

is indeed a fact. The fossil record proves it beyond any kind of reasonable doubt.

How the forms change (and certainly why they change) can be described with theories - like natural selection. NS is "just" a theory, but it has been subjected to counterarguments for 150 years and held up very well.

By the way, why do Xtians object both to evolution and natural selection so much? Evolution and natural selection can both be a part of "God's plan", if that makes them feel better.

I know a lot of people object to Social Darwinism, as do I - but those same people seem to voting for the Social Darwinists, so I don't get the disconnect.

[LisaLynne]

13. I think they object ...

because they take the bible literally -- some of them, the Fundamentalists, at least. They have to believe the whole Adam and Even thing actually took place, about 6000 years ago. That, I believe, is why they are so disturbed by evolution. And, also, once one part of their worldview falls (i.e. some part of the bible is found that they personally can not take literally) their entire philosophy of life, right along with their certainty that they know all there is to know (at least everything that is important) goes right out the window. That is a hard place to be in and I think is why they can be so fanatical when confronted with evidence (or even an idea) that presents a different way to look at the world.

I know many religious people who have no problem with evolution. It has nothing to do with their faith.

[ProfessorPlum]

18. I know, but there are a lot of people whose brains

theoretically function who can't really believe that. I mean, they are told that they should believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago, so they do, sort of. But . . . they can't REALLY believe that, can they?

I can understand that they understand that it is important to pretend to believe that . . . but not that they actually do. Just my own myopia, I guess.

[immoderate]

27. I think there are some who really believe it.

--IMM

[damntexdem]

22. The Intelligent Design advocates go further than that:

they see the naturalistic methodology of ALL of science as undermining their religious worldview, and they aim to change all of science.

[ProfessorPlum]

26. Intelligent Design advocates

are the perfect exemplars of the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Again, why can't evolution and natural selection all be a part of "God's Plan" if that makes them happy?

[immoderate]

28. It's not Biblical, that's why!

They believe in the Bible, God is secondary. They don't even care that the "perfect being" is totally neurotic.

--IMM

[ProfessorPlum]

29. LOL

God certainly is a vindictive arsehole, too, according to the good book. Make a bunch of weak creations, then sentence them to eternal torment if they don't decide, after living in a world with no justice, that there is no God.

Good one, heavenly father!

[tk2kewl]

10. The fundies don't give a shit what the Pope says...

He is going to hell!

Mary-worshipper!