dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/25/85)
>> [Paul DuBois] >> It seems to me that the responsibility for dissemination of >> information relating to alternative theories of evolution rests >> squarely on the shoulders of the evolutionist. Don't you agree? > [Mike Huybensz] > As a matter of fact, evolutionary biologists have not been commanded by god > to go out and spread evolutionary biology to the world. Most professional > biologists are squirrelled away in universities. Then they can quit complaining when their work does not appear in the textbooks. > If biologists are scurrilously proselytizing for secular humanism as many > creationists think they are, creationists have little to worry about. I think that in general creationists view the situation more along the lines of secular humanists proselytizing for evolution. > The real problem is that of bringing proper educational materials to > teachers. (Scientist doesn't necessarily equal teacher, as all too many > college students learn.) The textbook industry is quite slow to absorb > new ideas in science. Partly because what sells textbooks is who they > appeal to and who they don't offend. It's quite likely that many children > will not learn about punctuated equilibrium because of the efforts of > people like the Gablers in Texas. It's quite likely that many more people have been exposed to p.e. because of the noise that creationists make about it, than have been exposed to it because of evolutionary scientists. They just won't hear about it in a way you like. The textbook industry may be slow to absorb new ideas. It would appear that they are even slower to get rid of erroneous or unsupported ones, as well. Such as the idea that the horse forms a nice orthogenetic lineage instead of a confusing bush at best. This is *known*. Such as the idea that processes such as simple allelic substitution like we see in the peppered moth accounts for macroevolution. This is *by no means* demonstrated. Yet it gets parroted all over the place. And this general idea isn't just put forth in textbooks written by non-scientists. Take a look at E O Wilson's book _Life on Earth_ sometime. Here's part of it [p653]: "Each of the examples of micro-evolution examined, involving shifts in the frequencies of small numbers of genes, could be multiplied a hundredfold from reports in the scientific literature. Biologists have been privileged to witness the beginnings of evolutionary change in many kinds of plants and animals and under a variety of situations, and they have used this opportunity to test the assumptions of population genetics that form the foundations of modern evolutionary theory. The question that should be asked before we proceed to new ideas is whether more extensive evolutionary change, macro-evolution, can be explained as an outcome of these micro-evolutionary shifts. Did birds really arise from reptiles by an accumulation of gene substitutions of the kind illustrated by the raspberry eye-color gene? "The answer is that it is entirely plausible, and no one has come up with a better explanation consistent with the known biological facts. One must keep in mind the enormous difference in timescale between the observed cases of micro-evolution. Under natural conditions the nearly complete substitution of the melanic gene of the peppered moth took fifty years. Evolution of the magnitude of the origins of birds usually, perhaps invariably, takes many millions of years. As palaeontologists explore the fossil record with increasing care, transitions are being documented between increasing numbers of species, genera, and higher taxonomic groups. The reading from these fossil archives suggests that macro-evolution is indeed gradual, placed at a rate that leads to the conclusion that it is based upon hundreds of thousands of gene substitutions no different in kind from the ones examined in our case histories." Hitching quotes this passage in his book and comments: "It is the whole and only passage on the subject [of macroevolution], verbatim. No doubts or contrary arguments about the mechanism of macro-evolution appear anywhere." I looked it up to see if it is really true. It is. Did you ever hear anything different than this in school? I didn't. The confidence exuded by this passage is truly a marvel to behold, particularly in view of the fact that the general conclusion presented by the excerpt is hardly generally agreed upon. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/31/85)
>> The real problem is that of bringing proper educational materials to >> teachers. (Scientist doesn't necessarily equal teacher, as all too many >> college students learn.) The textbook industry is quite slow to absorb >> new ideas in science. Partly because what sells textbooks is who they >> appeal to and who they don't offend. It's quite likely that many children >> will not learn about punctuated equilibrium because of the efforts of >> people like the Gablers in Texas. > >It's quite likely that many more people have been exposed to p.e. >because of the noise that creationists make about it, than have been >exposed to it because of evolutionary scientists. They just won't >hear about it in a way you like. Yes, they'll hear about it totally misrepresented (a reptile gave birth to a bird etc.). >Hitching quotes this passage in his book and comments: "It is the >whole and only passage on the subject [of macroevolution], verbatim. >No doubts or contrary arguments about the mechanism of macro-evolution >appear anywhere." I looked it up to see if it is really true. It is. > >Did you ever hear anything different than this in school? I didn't. >The confidence exuded by this passage is truly a marvel to behold, >particularly in view of the fact that the general conclusion presented >by the excerpt is hardly generally agreed upon. > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- I didn't even hear this much in school. Actually, I got very little information on evolution in school (I didn't major in biochemistry or palentology though). Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/01/85)
In article <1147@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >> The real problem is that of bringing proper educational materials to >> teachers. (Scientist doesn't necessarily equal teacher, as all too many >> college students learn.) The textbook industry is quite slow to absorb >> new ideas in science. Partly because what sells textbooks is who they >> appeal to and who they don't offend. It's quite likely that many children >> will not learn about punctuated equilibrium because of the efforts of >> people like the Gablers in Texas. > >The textbook industry may be slow to absorb new ideas. It would appear >that they are even slower to get rid of erroneous or unsupported ones, >as well. Such as the idea that the horse forms a nice orthogenetic >lineage instead of a confusing bush at best. This is *known*. Such as >the idea that processes such as simple allelic substitution like we see >in the peppered moth accounts for macroevolution. This is *by no >means* demonstrated. Yet it gets parroted all over the place. And >this general idea isn't just put forth in textbooks written by >non-scientists. Take a look at E O Wilson's book _Life on Earth_ >sometime. Here's part of it [p653]: > Extensive quote ommited. > >Did you ever hear anything different than this in school? I didn't. >The confidence exuded by this passage is truly a marvel to behold, >particularly in view of the fact that the general conclusion presented >by the excerpt is hardly generally agreed upon. > I agree with you here, pre-college science are often poor and the teaching is often even worse. However, no matter how out of date or erroneous the treatment of evolution in a non-technical text is, this issue has *no* bearing on the validity(or lack of it) of the real theory of evolution as it is being developed by working scientists. Furthermore, this problem is by no means restricted to biology texts, it is also found in physics texts at this level(which still use the "solar system" model of an atom!!), and in fact by nearly all science text at this level. So what you have here is a totally different issue, concerning the proper *method* for teaching introductory science to pre-college students. This is indeed a valid issue, and one of great concern to me, but I think the solution should be more along the lines of trying to teach thinking instead of "facts", thus giving the students a better of the realities of the scientific method. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen