Would you like it better if I said that evolution is reproduction?
You’re just mad because I said I didn’t care when you made your appeal to emotion, aren’t you? 
I’m only interested in reason, not decisions-by-committee. A couple of people have provided cites as to the absence of evolution as a specific test criteria in several places, so I don’t see a need to expand on that.
So teach it. Never said you shouldn’t. I just assert it’s a second-tier topic, since to teach it and have it be understood, you have to cover the real basics first.
Evolution is the “real” basics.
You assert that you can understand evolution before reproduction, heredity, and chromosomes?
Creative reading. Who said there can only be one basic?
No.
Oh, I admit there can be different thresholds for different folks as to what ‘basic’ is - it’s just my contention that logically:
- the processes of an individual organism are the things most likely to be encountered by students
- learning about those processes is more likely to be useful
- the processes of an individual organism, tied together, make a nice, cohesive whole for the purposes of education.
So while one could argue that teaching students the definition of life gives them a “basic” understanding of biology - the processes of the individual organism is the logical basic unit.
I think that “big picture” is more the way to teach biology, both for comprehension and student motivation. They could get students enthralled by the most amazing thing in the universe, which is the genesis and development of life – instead they disect flobber worms and worry pedantically about the details of photosynthesis and cell mitosis. As with so many subjects in school, it seems like their covert purpose is to destroy interest in the material.
Well, let’s not stray too far into a debate on educational methodology. I was just illustrating my idea of ‘basic understanding of biology’.
Gosh, you really have no concept what constitutes a logical fallacy, do you? First, you incorrectly suggest that my appeal to authority is irrelevant; second, you imply that an example of the use of evolution in a classroom is irrelevant.
I believe half of that. You’ve shown a poor understanding of reason in this thread, and you’ve shown a disregard for the conclusions of people with far more training in the two necessary fields than you have.
Absence of evidence does not equal…
The fact that there are some places that do not currently test on evolution is not the subject of this thread. The subject is whether it’s essential to an understanding of biology. Pretty much every scientific and pedagogical body that has discussed this specific issue is in agreement that it’s necessary. You’ve offered no real arguments to the contrary, hoping instead that listing the names of logical fallacies will constitute a rebuttal.
Daniel
[Hijack] Lefty, I got the Pinker. Be prepared for me to crush you with the mighty force of my knowledge-fu! 
[/Hijack]]
Candid - My point is that “basic” is subjective, but to the extent that you try to make it empirical, evolution comes quickly to play. “Origins” and “Context” are usually considered basics. “Specifics” and “Details” are not.
Interestingly enough, I’ve had reason through work to discuss the core curriculum of college biology courses. The science professor feels what is most missing from incoming college freshmen’s education is appreciation for the synthesis of different biological concepts and the different levels of biology from cells to ecosystems. Evolution IS (theoretically and factually) the synthesis he means.
Evolution is the foundation for understanding biology.
So many people seem to believe that passionately, but can’t seem to offer any objective evidence of it.
I never said appeal to authority was a fallacy in this context. Appeal to authority just doesn’t convince me of anything, unless it’s used in a strictly factual context.
As for the appeal to emotion, what other purpose does this paragraph serve?
Won’t SOMEbody think of the CHILdren? Perhaps you meant it differently, but when you speak of the struggle to argue in favor of evolution in the classroom, I just get mental pictures and sounds of a chorus of violins…
What would constitute “objective evidence” for a subjective idea? Topics are artificial, their epistemological framework is artificial. There’s no way to turn a topic on its back and reveal its “essence” like it’s the sex of a puppy.
On the other hand, any intellectually honest person would grant that the “essence” of a topic is its origins and destiny, not the mechanics of this or that element.
For pity’s sake. When we’re discussing the education of children, it is appropriate to be thinking about the children. It is hard to think of a more relevant example when discussing the appropriateness of aspects of pre-college education than an example of education happening in a pre-college environment.
Once again, you demonstrate that you don’t understand the bad arguments that you’re listing the names of. “Won’t someone think of the children” is a crappy argument to bring up when discussing whether adults should be able to drink high-octane beers, or watch racy movies, or gamble; it’s usually a silly argument to bring up in discussions of fishery management, tax reform, or new weapons systems.
But if you’re trying to discuss childhood education without thinking of children–I guess that explains the dificulties you’re having in this conversation.
Daniel
You’re way too wrapped up in this. The object of my ridicule is the melodrama being projected on the noble quest to defend Evolution from the theistic hordes knocking on the door.
Get those strawmen, Candid. Go get 'em.
Hardly. The essence of a science - from an educational perspective - is those ground-level details and the practical ramifications.