Evolution Lesson Plan Goes in for Redesign

[Chicago1871]

Evolution Lesson Plan Goes in for Redesign (http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/02/15/evolution.debate.ap/index.html)

Disputed teaching material used by Ohio public school students that questions evolutionary theory is headed back to the state committee that wrote the first version.

The Ohio Board of Education voted 11-4 Tuesday to delete a science standard and correlating lesson plan that encourages students to seek evidence for and against evolution. Critics had called the material an opening to teach intelligent design, which holds that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher authority.

"It is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about science," said board member Martha Wise, who pushed to eliminate the material.

The 2002 science standards said students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design.

[DoctorD]

This lesson plan isn't bad in itself because it would be difficult to find evidence against evolution. A critical analysis of evolutionary theory is not bad science and has led to modifications such as punctuated equilibrium

A critical analysis of atomic theory (i.e., that matter is composed of atoms)would be similar in intent.

However, in both cases it is unclear whether high school students possess the necessary background to make cogent arguments.

[Mel Brennan]

I reallly think that most of these cases only have legs because we've failed so well, for so long, at actually teaching and getting internalization of science and scientific method. If we HAD been largely successful at articulating, from the formative years on up, what science is and how it works and what rules and laws and methods it employs, this would not be an issue at all, except among those that reject science on its face, regardless of method, and those folks work hard to remove their kids from public schooling in general anyway, in large numbers, don't they?

This is about kids - now adults - never really understanding science in the first place.

[IntheNet]

This lesson plan isn't bad in itself because it would be difficult to find evidence against evolution...Difficult only if you were blind I suppose, otherwise evidence is quite apparent; a few of the many (random selection):

"Lack of Transitional Links: There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present." Said another way: there are few if any transitional forms of life that we can now directly observe evolving... Hard for the Darwinians to swallow this one!

"Genetic Experimentation: After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies! There is a wide variety of dog BREEDS but they are still dogs. Species bred beyond limits develop serious deformities. Darwin bred pigeons and knew this fact but in his "Origins of Species" he glossed over what is an impassable barrier to the "evolution" of one species from another." Ask the secular "My Father Is A Monkey" crowd to give you an example of an evolving fruit fly! In fact, demand one....

Primate Diet:Most of the published evolutionist text point to some sort of advanced primate as the 'missing link' in human development; what they cleverly neglect to say is that all primates are herbivores; i.e., an animal that eats only plant material, while humans have always been carnivores and herbivores; i.e., meat eaters and plant eaters. In the entire history of zoology, primates have never been able to be forced to eat meat; their diet is exclusive to plants, while humans have been able to, by their diet, to digest both.The Darwinians are big on Salad Bars but while you aren't watching they'll grab a cheeseburger! Every time!

"Living Things From Non-Living Things: To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing. Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living thing and this has never been observed." Oops... A big hole the secular "My Father Is A Monkey" crowd hasn't yet addressed.

I could cite quite a few more; the literature is rife with such common sense examples so your claim that it is difficult to find examples against evolution is simply patently untrue. There are myriad examples based on molecular biology concepts that clearly disprove evolution. Indeed, the secular evolutionists have performed a fraud on public schools by advancing a single theory of origin, and ignoring creationism as a competing theory. Mr. Morris expresses it best:

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
Henry Morris, former evolutionist

However, in both cases it is unclear whether high school students possess the necessary background to make cogent arguments.

You see, I disagree; I am perfectly willing to give high school students the choice of origin theories while the secular "My Father Is A Monkey" crowd will not; they wish to dictate what schools teach and they force children in public schools to buy into the secular evolution theory. What I and a great many forward thinking individuals see as plain is the pedagogical imperative to allow students to make a choice in origin theories and present them the best evidence available: for both evolution and creationism. We do this not advancing one over the other (as the secular evolutions do) but instead advocate the teaching of both, within a science forum, in order to better prepare children and give them the tools to make a selection on their own...

[Foosinho]

Difficult only if you were blind I suppose, otherwise evidence is quite apparent; a few of the many (random selection):
Go away, or we shall be forced to taunt you a 7-millionth time.

Don't bring this weak so-refuted-even-God-is-embarrassed-when-you-mention-it BS around here. Once you are ready to act like a grown up, maybe we'll let you sit at the grown-up table and discuss things like an adult.

[yossarian]

Primate Diet:Most of the published evolutionist text point to some sort of advanced primate as the 'missing link' in human development; what they cleverly neglect to say is that all primates are herbivores; i.e., an animal that eats only plant material, while humans have always been carnivores and herbivores; i.e., meat eaters and plant eaters. In the entire history of zoology, primates have never been able to be forced to eat meat; their diet is exclusive to plants, while humans have been able to, by their diet, to digest both.The Darwinians are big on Salad Bars but while you aren't watching they'll grab a cheeseburger! Every time!


"Evolutionary theory has always had to cope with the dietary differences between humanoids and the great apes -- leaf and banana munching apes but a savagely carnivorous Cave Man type of human. We have known, of course, for a long time that ethnologically we gather as often as we hunt, except the Eskimo and some others. Homo sapiens is omnivorous.
We have also known that chimps do sometimes eat meat. What is new are the recent appraisals of chimp meat-eating. Not only is it much more common than thought but also the notion that chimpanzees have something like a lust for meat is now upon us. Craig Stanford (U / Southern Californa) was reported in the New York Times (June 27, 1995) with these new emphases, including the new observation that sharing meat plays an important part in chimpanzee social interactions. Checking with David Pilbeam, I was reminded that male chimps do have 'large projecting canine teeth'. Those are not for cracking nuts or munching bananas!"

So....obviously you didn't spend your time away watching the Discovery channel.

[Mel Brennan]

Go away, or we shall be forced to taunt you a 7-millionth time.

Don't bring this weak so-refuted-even-God-is-embarrassed-when-you-mention-it BS around here. Once you are ready to act like a grown up, maybe we'll let you sit at the grown-up table and discuss things like an adult.


IOW, Arte et Laboor? :)

[IntheNet]

We have also known that chimps do sometimes eat meat. What is new are the recent appraisals of chimp meat-eating...I simply highlighted the apparent issue of evidence, to wit, that primates are exclusively herbivores while humans are carnivores and herbivores; i.e., as you stated: omnivores... If evolution is to be believed, primates would be carnivores in an evolutionary time line that could be observed... they aren't... none are. Indeed, no zoo, no wildlife reserve, no natural setting currently or ever has featured meat-eating primates... Which leaves a fairly large gap in evolution if such an obvious exception to it can be made apparent.

So....obviously you didn't spend your time away watching the Discovery channel.Try to stay topical and I'll reciprocate. :)

[yossarian]

I simply highlighted the apparent issue of evidence, to wit, that primates are exclusively herbivores while humans are carnivores and herbivores; i.e., as you stated: omnivores... If evolution is to be believed, primates would be carnivores in an evolutionary time line that could be observed... they aren't... none are. Indeed, no zoo, no wildlife reserve, no natural setting currently or ever has featured meat-eating primates... Which leaves a fairly large gap in evolution if such an obvious exception to it can be made apparent.

Try to stay topical and I'll reciprocate. :)

Can you not read?

Chimps eat meat as well as plants. Therefore, chimps are omnivores just like humans.

The information you posted about no primates eating meat is wrong.

[Chicago1871]

"Lack of Transitional Links: There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present." Said another way: there are few if any transitional forms of life that we can now directly observe evolving... Hard for the Darwinians to swallow this one!
This is untrue. There are no "transitional links/intermediate forms" to humans or some current animals, but long extinct animals have been found to be extremely similar to other old/newer with only a few minor variations, suggesting a very close and common ancestry.
"Genetic Experimentation: After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies! There is a wide variety of dog BREEDS but they are still dogs. Species bred beyond limits develop serious deformities. Darwin bred pigeons and knew this fact but in his "Origins of Species" he glossed over what is an impassable barrier to the "evolution" of one species from another." Ask the secular "My Father Is A Monkey" crowd to give you an example of an evolving fruit fly! In fact, demand one....
If you breed fruit flies in the same environment, no evolutionary change is necessary as they survive without problems. Hypothetically if you bred fruit flies in an environment that was hostile to their survival you could, over a long period of time see some of them develop traits to assist in their survival as the strongest of the fruit flies pass on genetic material that allowed them to survice. The Biston betularia or peppered moth, has provided a good example of natural selection. While the methods of the scientist who originally published the work have been debated, the conclusions he made have largely stood up to scrutiny.
Primate Diet:Most of the published evolutionist text point to some sort of advanced primate as the 'missing link' in human development; what they cleverly neglect to say is that all primates are herbivores; i.e., an animal that eats only plant material, while humans have always been carnivores and herbivores; i.e., meat eaters and plant eaters. In the entire history of zoology, primates have never been able to be forced to eat meat; their diet is exclusive to plants, while humans have been able to, by their diet, to digest both.The Darwinians are big on Salad Bars but while you aren't watching they'll grab a cheeseburger! Every time!
Humans, as they exist today are omnivores (meaning they eat both meat and plants). Chimps, as they exist today, are also onmivores, but have thicker enamel on their teeth. Their primary diet consists of plants (hence the thicker enamel), but their incisors are more suited to assisting in the processing of other dietary items, like meat.
"Living Things From Non-Living Things: To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing. Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living thing and this has never been observed." Oops... A big hole the secular "My Father Is A Monkey" crowd hasn't yet addressed.
Evolutions does not require non-living matter to "turn into a living thing." Evolution does not address origins. Evolutions begins with the postulate that a single celled organism, over billions of years of evolution, resulted in the current species on the planet today.
You see, I disagree; I am perfectly willing to give high school students the choice of origin theories while the secular "My Father Is A Monkey" crowd will not; they wish to dictate what schools teach and they force children in public schools to buy into the secular evolution theory. What I and a great many forward thinking individuals see as plain is the pedagogical imperative to allow students to make a choice in origin theories and present them the best evidence available: for both evolution and creationism. We do this not advancing one over the other (as the secular evolutions do) but instead advocate the teaching of both, within a science forum, in order to better prepare children and give them the tools to make a selection on their own...
We've been over this and are not revisiting your innacurate statments again.

[DJPoopypants]

"My father is a monkey"?

I think that should be changed to "Yo Momma's a monkey!", don't you?

[MikeLastort2]

I really am curious. Why did the admins decide to allow ItN to return to the boards?

He's a troll.

[Chicago1871]

I really am curious. Why did the admins decide to allow ItN to return to the boards?

He's a troll.
Please stay on topic. Take any issues you have with a member to the appropriate forum/individuals.

[Samarkand]

Indeed, no zoo, no wildlife reserve, no natural setting currently or ever has featured meat-eating primates...
So you can't read or comprehend? Jane Goodall first observed (http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html) flesh eating chimps over 40 years ago. Needless to say, you'll do as ever, and ignore this, and go on touting falsehoods because the facts don't fit your worldview.

I'm with Mike on this one.

[royalstilton]

I like the bit about the one-celled life form evolving into all the known species, given enough time. There is at least one problem with this concept: all of the DNA necessary to produce the multiplicity of the current species must have been accessible from the onset, except for mutation and gene duplication resulting in sufficient anomaly that a new species eventually evolved.

The assumption that, given enough time, this process would produce the observable results is such a leap of faith that spiritual faith in God is no more illogical.

People point to positive "adaptations" such as sickle-cell anemics being resistent to malaria, but this kind of argument isn't really a cogent as it appears on the surface, since populations with sickle-cell anemia are not well-adapted. Rather, they are genetically compromised in the first place.

I don't want Intelligent Design taught as science, but I don't want evolution taught as if it were a proven fact. It still has a few hills to climb. And until then, it should be posed as a theoretical construct that is still being tested. Moreover, evolution should not be allowed to shoulder a Creator out of the "origins" equation. It is completely unreasonable to state that evolution establishes that there is no need for a Creator for life to exist. Science has not proved that, and it may never, especially since it is probable that the environment from which Life emerged is not reproducible.

[Samarkand]

"My father is a monkey"?

I think that should be changed to "Yo Momma's a monkey!", don't you?
Donkey, not monkey..........

[yossarian]

So you can't read or comprehend? Jane Goodall first observed (http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html) flesh eating chimps over 40 years ago. Needless to say, you'll do as ever, and ignore this, and go on touting falsehoods because the facts don't fit your worldview.

I'm with Mike on this one.

Good post and link.

I recently saw a documentary that showed the fact that chimps not only hunt for food but that they also will at times go on what are basically search and destroy missions against rival chimp tribes. The researchers even had film footage which was pretty horrific to watch.

[DJPoopypants]

I don't want Intelligent Design taught as science, but I don't want evolution taught as if it were a proven fact. It still has a few hills to climb. And until then, it should be posed as a theoretical construct that is still being tested.

Sounds pretty good to me. Science is hypotheses either backed up or lacking in experimental evidence. Evolution is no more a "fact" than Calculus is a "fact". They're both logical systems of explanation. But evolution is the hypotesis that is most practical and consistent with the evidence so far, so it needs to be taught.

Moreover, evolution should not be allowed to shoulder a Creator out of the "origins" equation. It is completely unreasonable to state that evolution establishes that there is no need for a Creator for life to exist. Science has not proved that, and it may never, especially since it is probable that the environment from which Life emerged is not reproducible.
There is no evidence that there is no creator, nor could I ever conceive of any irrefutable experimental proof of that hypothesis. People who believe or disbelieve are jumping to their own conclusions based on partial evidence.

[Foosinho]

The assumption that, given enough time, this process would produce the observable results is such a leap of faith that spiritual faith in God is no more illogical.
Perhaps it's a "leap of faith" for you, but it isn't for me. :)

I don't want Intelligent Design taught as science, but I don't want evolution taught as if it were a proven fact.
This should be handled by proper teaching of the scientific method. No special disclaimers are necessary - if they are, then we need them for every single topic discussed in a science class.

Intelligently discussing evolutionary theory in detail is above the level and scope of a high school biology class. They don't have the requisite scientific education to get into the details.

We don't expect the teaching of the theory of plate tectonics in a high school geometry class to cover issues such as lunar drag, or a high school physics class to talk about relativity in any kind of detail - the kids just don't have the requisite math. In fact, we teach Newtonian physics - and even use them in COLLEGE ENGINEERING classes - because the simpler equations give results that match those of a better theory for those domains! I don't recall the "this is just a theory, and should be evaluated critically" speech for any of these topics because it flat-out wasn't necessary.

[Chicago1871]

I like the bit about the one-celled life form evolving into all the known species, given enough time. There is at least one problem with this concept: all of the DNA necessary to produce the multiplicity of the current species must have been accessible from the onset, except for mutation and gene duplication resulting in sufficient anomaly that a new species eventually evolved.
It's tough to believe that the four bases of DNA were accessible?
People point to positive "adaptations" such as sickle-cell anemics being resistent to malaria, but this kind of argument isn't really a cogent as it appears on the surface, since populations with sickle-cell anemia are not well-adapted. Rather, they are genetically compromised in the first place.
And over the next million(s) of years they may exist in the same form, or have changed. You have to look at it over the longterm.
I don't want Intelligent Design taught as science, but I don't want evolution taught as if it were a proven fact.
It's taught as fact? I have never read a single credible science book that claimed evolution was a fact.
It still has a few hills to climb. And until then, it should be posed as a theoretical construct that is still being tested.
It does, and it is. No one disputes this.
Moreover, evolution should not be allowed to shoulder a Creator out of the "origins" equation.
If you're refering to the origin of life equation, then evolution does no such thing. If you're refering to the origin of species, then it does.
It is completely unreasonable to state that evolution establishes that there is no need for a Creator for life to exist.
Evolution does not do this.
Science has not proved that, and it may never, especially since it is probable that the environment from which Life emerged is not reproducible.
Very true, but that will never convince me that making up a method is a sound idea.