Exactly. I wanted to make that point, but you’ve put it much better than I could. 
All living things die. I’m sure you mean that somespecies “die” (i.e. became extinct, or became evolutionary dead ends), but the reason they became extinct was because they stopped reproducing.
Not true. It is possible to have a living thing that will never evolve. Once the inanimate proteins join together and create something that meets a definition of life - it might evolve, it might die, it might reproduce awhile without change and THEN die off. Evolution is not fundamental to life. If you broaden the definition of fundamental to include evolution, you’re including just about every single biological detail there is.
No, it’s just an incomplete understanding.
To get back on topic: I still don’t know why we would voluntarily leave out theories that are current, crucial and fairly easy to understand from any science course.
The larger context isn’t in why we would, it’s if we feel strongly enough to punish those who do. In the past Diogenes has advocated penalties for home educators who teach their children biology without including evolution.
Enjoy,
Steven
There are at least two important differences between pre-Darwin biology and modern physics. First, physics has quite a few unifying principles, like quantum mechanics and relativity.
Second, modern physics understands far more about how physics actually works; it’s still incomplete, but they know a lot of the unifying principles and the nuts-and-bolts of how physics works. They didn’t know much about biology pre-Darwin past listing physical data. They didn’t know how any of it worked; they didn’t even know about cells or DNA, and the only unifying principle they had was false. It was almost as big as the difference between alchemy and chemistry; the major difference was that the biologists had far more and better data.
In other words they had plenty of biological data; they had little biological understanding because they lacked the underlying theory that would make sense of what they knew.
I’m not discussing newly “created” life. The theory of evolution is not relevant to it. I’m talking about your regular, run-of-the mill living organisms we can see everyday, that are the product of reproduction.
Evolution is not fundamental to a single living organism but it does give a general framework to explain how that organism came to have the properties that it does. If you don’t think that that framework should be part of biology, then I disagree, and we should probably leave it at that.
In that context, I’d say that you don’t have a good understanding of biology if you don’t know the basics of evolutionary theory. I don’t know if it would be effective to punish parents who “teach biology” without explaining evolution. I’d assume their children would (rightly) fail their biology exams * untill they did.
- I’m not too familiar with home-schooling, but I’m assuming there are some kind of state exams.
I’ve concluded you don’t know what you’re talking about and am done arguing with you.
Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching physics without mathematics.
No I haven’t. I’ve only advocated that homeschooled children should have to answer some basic questions on evolution in order to receive any sort of high school equivalency certification. I’ve never advocated any kind of punishment for the parents.
It’s about 50/50 with states which require some standardized testing of homeschoolers and states which don’t. The tests which are applied are typically general tests which cover all subjects at once. I’d say a fair majority won’t have many questions specific to evolution. Missing all of them probably wouldn’t be enough to affect even the letter grade, let alone be the difference between passing and failing. A reasonably good home education with only evolution left out would still typically be more than adequate to pass the state tests.
Enjoy,
Steven
Nope. Math is simply a tool to describe the behavior of physical objects. It isn’t part of physics. Evolution is part of biology. I can tell you about almost every physiological process that goes on inside a cell without once mentioning evolution. From a teaching standpoint, evolution is generally an interesting side note, rather than an essetial part of the subject itself. One certainly couldn’t teach the history of biology without teaching about evolution, but that’s a different matter.
Granted.
This is true, and Gould has an excellent essay on this, reprinted in Ever Since Darwin (I think…I don’t have it with me and Amazon.com’s contents page is screwed up). He found it ironic that as Linnaeus categorized both modern and fossil species that he was so obtuse (perhaps deliberately) as to not recognize that not only are anatomical features common between animals, but that they show a pattern of development, from crude to refined. Of course, he significantly predated Darwin and so there is no expectation that he would look for a non-divine mechanism connecting species.
A study of taxonomy need not require evolution–indeed, we classify all sort of nonorganic artificats that are clearly not subject to such–but with regard to reproducing biological systems, a study of common characteristics opens up the question of why similar features appear on vastly different animals? Why, again, do vertebrates have two eyes, regardless of whether they swim, fly, walk, or climb? Understanding this process opens up a fundamental underlying principle of biology.
If primary education is a question of knowledge and skills that are directly applicable to the vocation and lifestyle one is likely to hold as an adult then I daresay that very much of what we study in school is needless, and I can’t see that anyone need study much biology; a little bit of nutrition, some practical anatomy, and sexual education just about covers all the basic needs. But if the goal of education is to produce an individual who can function as a critical thinker, who can assess claims made by pundits, politicians, and promoters, who can examine the reasoning behind an unfamiliar claim or technology and have the basis for comprehending arguments about it, then understanding basic, underlying principles is a must. Certainly, you can learn about tissues and organs and circulatory systems; you can classify flora and fauna; you can memorize factoids about cellular organelles and osmotic processes. And you can (and will, unless this is a part of your job or interest) forget most of this information just as quickly. But understanding why and how evolution occurs offers a comprehensive principle of life, and lights a candle that shines a critical flame upon a basic understanding of the natural world.
Or, you can have students memorize the names of different bones. A useful body of knowledge for a nurse or a paleontologist and a good exercize of one’s ability to use memory, but not any more specifically applicable to most occupations than evolution.
Stranger
At this point you really do need to define precisely what it is that you think evolution is. Selective breeding is evolution, in precisely the same way that ballistics is physics or Civil War is history. Selective breeding is a small applied part of evolution.
But as I say, toprevent goalpost shifting you really do need ot define waht it is that you man when you say ‘evolution’. My textbook and dictionary say “Changes in a populations resulting from alteration of gene frequency”. By the common definition of evolution selective breeding and inheritance are evolution.
So what defifnition are you using? Or are you arguing about somehting totally different and suggetsing that unless we teach all world history to grade school students we aren’t in fact teahcing history, and unless we teach general relativiity we aren’t teaching physics, and unless we teach prion modulated environmental inheritance we aren’t teaching evolution?
You seem to be syaing the opposite: that genetics, inheritance and selective breeding are not knowledge that comes from understanding “changes in a populations resulting from alteration of gene frequency”.
I’m confused.
In this thread, I think we can say Evolution = Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
If a shop class isn’t essential to life, how is a basic literacy class essential to life? Plenty of people survive without being literate. If we’re going to be overly literal, plenty of people survive without any formal schooling at all, so we may conclude that there’s no such thing as an essential formal education.
Me, I consider it essential to a good education that it teach the student the underlying principles of the discipline: the student needs to understand why, not simply understand that. As such, an understanding of biology must be predicated on an understanding of why.
Natural Selection represents the most cogent, well-proved, comprehensive, specific explanation of the whys of biology that we currently have. We didn’t used to have it, so an understanding of biology used to be based on an explanation that was inferior in the well-proved and specific categories (and, I think, the cogency category). Some day, we may face evidence that causes us to drop natural selection in favor of a theory that is better-proved, more cogent, more comprehensive, and/or more specific. At that point, an understanding of biology will not be based on natural selection.
But today, an understanding of evolution through natural selection is essential to an understanding of biology. If we need our students to understand the ways and reasons that life functions, we need them to understand natural selection.
Daniel
Daniel
Two points.
Firstly that’s debatable. Most grade school students are going to be expected to know what mammal is for example, and be able to rattle of the old “has hair and drinks milk” chestnut. If by “speak authoritatively” you mean be able to publish on the subject then, no. But by that standard school students aren’t expected to be authoritative in anything. To the extent that they will expected to have knowledge of the area then yeah.
Secondly, the reason American High School students have so little knowledge of taxonomy and are spoon fed discrete units seems to be precisely because evolution is suppressed. I spent some of my HS years in Australia and was surprised at how much it is addressed. It’s simply taken as fact that fish became amphibians or reptiles and taught that way. As a result students do know the transitional features etc. The same is true of most countries outside the US. So this appears to be largely a circular answer.
As an example here is the first site I found referring to GCSE biology in the UK. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/variationandinheritance/3evolutionrev1.shtml ) while here is a sample syllabus from Australia (http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/yrs1to10/kla/science/docs/syllabus/syllabus.pdf ). In both cases students are expected to have a knowledge of taxonomy, as for example “Evolutionary processes have given rise to a diversity of living things which can be grouped according to their characteristics.” Only in the US is this sort of thing not considered necessary for high school biology. And of course it’s mighty hard to teach that without mentioning evolution.
I seriously doubt that. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is erroneous, based on flawed assumptions, was established in complete ignorance of genetics and has been falsified numerous times. In short it’s just plain wrong.
I doubt if anyone is asking whether we should teach children a theory which we know is incorrect and incompatible with the real world. I was kind of assuming that we were discussing evolution in some form that has scientific merit. Were we actually peaking about Darwin’s theory we would be endorsing Lamarkism for example.
This is such an extraordinary statement, that I can’t believe as educated person as you are could sincerely hold it. “Math is simply a tool?” I think you’d find very few physicists or mathematicians who would agree with that statement.
Here’s a good essay to read on the subject. [Warning: pdf file.]
A few choice quotes:
I’d also say, taking this quote as point of departure in keeping with my original simile, that any predicitive elements in biological processes cannot be understood without evolution.
I’d also say the models of biology are most productive when they use the language of evolution to convey their structure. (Not sure symmetry has a place here.)
I’d also say, the framework for any biological problem is built on evolution; a understanding of evolution is a necessary part in deduction and problem solving in biological sciences.
You could, I suppose, but that would be lousy teaching in that it permits very little in the way of understanding. The dynamic connections between cell forms of different organisms (to bring in your example) permitted by an understanding of evolution are lost, and at worst are replaced with pseudo-science or even mere superstition. We see that happening a lot with “Intelligent Design.”
Our present understanding of almost every biological process is centered around evolution. Evolution is simply central to biology, leaving it out denies its role as the fundamental, organizing principle of all biological sciences. I think almost any creditable biology teacher you could name would find such an apporach unconscionable.