IMO Diogenes isn’t far off, though: assuming standard (imperfect) reproduction mechanisms.
As long as the resulting organism has to deal with normal (i.e. changing and difficult if not hostile) conditions on earth, you have evolution.
Not at all. Biology is the study of life. To study life, or to study any subject for that matter, the first thing you do is establish your terms. “When I say ‘life’, I mean this.” “A living thing has these properties.”
And the reason I didn’t answer the question is because it is a strawman and has nothing to do with this debate. I don’t think they shouldn’t be told that. It’s just not basic, and thus one can have an understanding of biology without it.
So that’s the first hour of your biology class. Seriously, I was though all that when I was 6 (and we all got to make costumes of our favorite organism - wheehee - that was fun!)
Life is more than just “stuff that lives, right now”.
Only, in the case of typical science “experiments”, like cutting embalmed earthworms open to find their gonads, nobody is learning how to do science or think scientifically. You’re learning how to dissect earthworms. I can think of no analagous exercise to learning how to play an instrument but, for instance, learning how to type is not learning the English language or how to use it. Who would teach someone to memorize the home-row keys before they knew how to read?
Yes, Life is more than that. But once again, we’re not saying ‘You can have a COMPLETE understanding of biology without knowing evolution.’
And it’s more than the first hour of class, because it dovetails outward. ‘Living things grow.’ ‘Living things reproduce.’ Those are overview sentences for topics that can be greatly expanded upon.
The experiments aren’t supposed to teach the scientific method. They’re supposed to be attention-getters to drive the students’ minds towards the desire to learn mroe about the subject. And when did we get on the scientific method anyway? You can understand biology without the scientific method too, but it’s also something that should be covered in science classes - but I wonder why you bring it up - since Evolutionary theory has no more special claim on the scientific method than any other established theory.
Like you could (and IMO should) expand from reproduction to evolution. Could you take a look at my post #194 in this thread (specifically from “evolution is not a difficult concept” onwards) and tell me why you think? I don’t think we’re going to agree on this subject, but I am curious.
I mean what you think. :smack:
Look, let’s step back a minute.
If we go back to the statements that started this, it wasn’t that kids should be taught evolution, but rather that kids who fail a test on evolution should be denied a high-school diploma.
That’s just silly. Yeah, if there’s a test that all students must take before they should get a high-school diploma then part of that test should include biology, and a lot of that biology test should include evolution. But if a kid fails the biology portion of the test do we refuse to grant them a diploma? What if they ace every other portion of the exam? It seems to me that designing a test with a list of questions that guarantee failure for the entire test if you answer incorrectly is the wrong approach. Do we deny kids a high-school diploma if they get the wrong answer for who is first president of the United States? It doesn’t make sense. Instead we have a series of questions, if you fail enough of them you fail the test, it doesn’t matter which ones you fail.
I would disagree strongly that you can teach biology without the scientific method. You pretty much said “you can teach science without teaching science.” You can certainly teach comparative anatomy, which is a very useful body of knowledge to have when exploring biological problems, but again, it’s learning anatomy, not how to do biology.
I bring up evolutionary theory for two reasons: First, it’s in the title of the thread, etc. Second, you can use that learning to perform some actual scientific investigation in even a classroom setting, as I already noted. In other words, it’s a very simple, straightforward, and universally-applicable conceptual framework in the study of life with which one can not only actually engage in an investigation of biological problems as opposed to rote learning, but also learn how to think scientifically in general.
Didn’t ask why you brought up evolutionary theory. Asked why you brought up the scientific method.
And like it or not, elementary school science is NOT taught with the goal of fostering future generations of scientists, it’s taught with a goal of broadening awareness and understanding of FACTS.
If you amended to ‘any child can be TAUGHT that’ I’d agree.
The reason evolution is not a basic concept is not because it is difficult but because you have to know so much beforehand. You have to cover reproduction and iinheritance first. Evolution is the outcome of those processes. Sure, you could glaze over them, ignore the rest of biology, and leap ahead to evolution, but then the students really would lack an understanding of biology.
In Dio-world you’re absolutely right(aren’t you always?). In the real world there are science teachers who have degrees in history, or kineseology. I had a physical science teacher who was a football coach. I had a 103 average in his class because I knew more about physics than he did. Reality is more fluid and forgiving than Dio-world.
That’s probably a good thing.
Enjoy,
Steven
I don’t advocate ignoring the rest of biology or using evolution as a starting point in the education of biology. I’m perfectly OK with teaching a basic understanding of single organisms first. I’ve said as much in my previous posts in this thread.
But I meant what I said in post #194. Any child can see that they have certain traits that their parents have, and also some that their parents don’t, etc. You don’t have to teach that in school. You might have to draw to their attention to it, but it’s not new knowledge. What might be new is the implication of those 3 factors; evolution.
Darwin knew much less about the mechanism of reproduction than your typical highschool student does right now (at least where I live), but he could figure it out.
“So I have brown hair, when Mommy and Daddy don’t, 'cause I evolved?”
Not according to the National Academy of Science’s National Science Standards. (Note that the North Carolina Standard Course of Study directly references these standards; I’m guessing the SCoS in other states does as well)
Note “and skills” in the last sentence: it’s NOT just about facts. Note “regardless of age” in the third sentence. That means that young kids need to be learning the skills as well.
It’s all about understanding.
Let’s skip ahead to the content standards. According to the Life Science Standards (in a graphic, so I won’t put in quotes), biological evolution is a standard at the high school level. Reproduction and heredity is a standard at the middle school level. Life-cycles and characteristics of organisms is a standard at the elementary level.
On the same page, they emphasize the importance of unifying concepts:
What was that? Evolution is a univying concept? Hmm.
I’ll close with an example of referring to evolution in a classroom. Today I was in eight different classrooms at the K-5 level, talking with kids about taking care of animals. One of the things I talk to them about is the eating habits of dogs and cats: dogs tend to gorge whenever they get the chance, whereas cats tend to eat multiple smaller meals.
When I was in the classrooms at grade 2 or above, I asked, as I always do, for kids to name an animal in the wild that’s closely related to dogs. “Foxes!” they’ll sometimes shout, or, “Coyotes!” But soon the kids will mention “Wolves!” and I’m on my way.
“Wolves,” I say, “are very closely related to dogs. Many scientists think they’re the same species. And wolves in the wild often will go for days at a time without eating, or eating small meals like mice, until the pack brings down a big animal like a deer, or a caribou. Then everyone in the pack eats and eats and eats, because they don’t know when their next big meal is coming in. Your dog, in his little doggy brain, thinks the same way. . . .” And I continue.
That’s evolution I’m talking about. I don’t launch into a full explanation of evolution; I don’t stop the lesson to explain evolution to the kids. But it underlies my explanation of why dogs like to gorge their food. It helps kids understand dog behavior; it helps them remember that dogs are the gorgers while cats are the nibblers.
A YEC might object to my saying that these animals are related, because a strict creationist doesn’t believe that different species may be related (and I suggest that they may be related even if they’re not the same species.) Should I be denied the right to use this connection with the kids, just because of some religious nutcase’s objection to science?
Daniel
Even if this were true, it’s a good thing because…?
<big fucking sarcasm tag>No, that’s because you’re adopted.</big fucking sarcasm tag> Can we please come back to some kind of serious debate or let this thread rest?
Well, yeah. If one could speak authoritatively on a subject out of high school, what is the need for college?
Not quite: US students are incompetent in taxonomy because they are taught an outdated taxonomic scheme. And what is taught regarding evolution is all too often filtered through that scheme, resulting in a poor understanding of evolution.
I don’t recall taking the position that it isn’t necessary…
Snipped. You’ve shown me the ideals set forth by an organization. That’s not how it plays out in schools around here. Real world vs. fantasy world of so-called ideal scientific learning.
Your last paragraph I left in - because it shows you’re completely off the mark here. No one is saying you should be denied the right to use that connection. That’s not this debate.