Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Thursday, February 26, 2004

A lesson plan for Oklahoma

Hi, kids! Today, in our 8th grade life sciences class here in the beautiful state of Oklahoma, we are going to learn all about Evolution. Evolution is a powerful scientific tool to explain the wonders of the world around us, and a famous scientist once said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. We’re going to learn that it is even more powerful than that, and that evolution also helps us understand politics, religion, and economics; the light of evolution will show us the brilliance of our representatives in Oklahoma City, the enlightening faith that guides them, and that you lucky children will have a bright, happy future as Wal-Mart employees.

Everyone, open your science book to the inside front cover. Let’s read this nifty little guide to biological science that we can thank Representative Bill Graves for. We will have to correct a few minor errors in it, but otherwise, it’s very helpful.


This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory, which some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans.

Yes! This textbook does discuss evolution. That is correct. Rep. Graves is off to a good start. There is a mistake in the next part, though: he really shouldn’t say it is a controversial theory. It is accepted by nearly every biologist on the planet. Could everyone scratch out the word “controversial”? Thanks.

Uh-oh, we still have some problems. “some scientists”? That’s kind of misleading, I think. Scratch out “some”, too.

And “present as a scientific explanation”? It is a scientific explanation. I’m not clear what he’s getting at, but let’s simplify. Draw a line through “some scientists present as” and write “is” above it. Good work! Let’s move on.


No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.

Yes, Danielle? You have a question? “What about God?"

That’s a hard question. Some people don’t believe in god, and would say he wasn’t present when life first appeared. Others think he was. We don’t know one way or another, and we don’t have any evidence for either possibility. Rep. Graves really shouldn’t be saying that. We don’t worry about god in science class, anyway.

Would it make you feel better if we scratched it out? OK. Everyone, draw a line through the first sentence.

If no one was present, though, does that mean we can’t ever figure out if something happened? Was anybody around last weekend when the second floor toilet overflowed and flooded the art room? No? I guess that means it didn’t happen then.

Oh, it did happen? How do you know?

That’s right: evidence. The broken toilet left evidence of the event. We’d be pretty silly if we tried to claim it didn’t happen because no one was standing there watching the whole time, wouldn’t we? It’s a good thing we scratched that sentence out already, because it made poor Rep. Graves look awfully silly.

The second sentence also has a problem. When we started this unit on science we explained what a theory was. Does anyone remember?

Exactly! It’s an explanation that is well-supported by evidence. Rep. Graves is correct when he says that evolution is a theory. It is a very, very powerful explanation, and as you’ll learn once we get past the inside cover of your textbook, it is very, very well supported by the evidence.

What about “fact”? What is that?

You kids are so good. Yes, it is an idea that is accepted as true, until further evidence refutes it. All the evidence so far supports evolution, and it has not been refuted, so it’s also a fact. It is both a fact, just like the broken toilet flooding the art room is a fact, and it is also a theory or explanation, just like the story that Chunk Jones tried to flush Dexter’s underpants is an explanation for how it was broken.

Hmmm. The second sentence in this paragraph is wrong, too. Maybe you should just scratch out the whole thing.



The word evolution may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (White moths, for example, may evolve into gray moths). This process is micro evolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing into another, such as reptiles into birds. This process, called macro evolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.

Now you get to learn some useful things. Evolution is about change, and there are different kinds of change, even more than just the two Rep. Graves mentions here. One kind of change is change that doesn’t result in a new species, and we call that microevolution, because the changes are small. Another kind is called macroevolution, because it results in big changes between species. This part of the paragraph is correct.

There are some problems, though. Evolution is a theory about populations, not individuals. We really don’t talk about a white moth turning into a gray moth; the white moths stay white and the gray ones stay gray. Could you write “Populations of” just before the words “white moths”? Very good.

Rep. Graves also has the definition of macroevolution wrong. Scratch out “change of one living thing into another, such as reptiles into birds”, and replace it with “change above the species level”.

There is a typo in the next sentence. Macroevolution has been observed; we’ll talk about fruit flies and Rhagoletis pomonella and the Faroe Island mouse and Culex molestus and ring species and many other examples later. Scratch out “never”. Also, where he says “theory”? That should be “fact”.

The last sentence is a bit of a mess, I’m afraid. Do we talk about “proof” in science class? No! Save that for Ms. Johnson’s geometry class. Do we talk about “beliefs” in science class? No! We talk about evidence and hypotheses and theories and experiments. Both of those words have to go. We’ll learn later that evolution is also not random; bye-bye, “random”. “Undirected”? Well, the evidence is compatible with that idea, but you know what? This sentence has so many errors in it, let’s just draw a line through the whole thing.


There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life, which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, known as the Cambrian Explosion? Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record in a long time?  Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record? How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body? Study hard and keep an open mind.  Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth.

I’m glad to see that Rep. Graves appreciates the many unanswered questions. Biology is an exciting topic, and one of the things that makes it fun is that there are so many new things to learn. I’m afraid some of his questions are wrong, though.

Your book does mention the Cambrian ‘Explosion’, like many general textbooks do. We have many hypotheses about how it happened, such as that it occurred as oxygen was becoming enriched in the atmosphere and making available new materials and greater metabolic rates, or that life evolved to a threshold of complexity that allowed for exploration of novel forms. We don’t have nice, sharp, final answers, but it is an interesting topic. Since it’s a good question, leave it in, but let’s strike out “which are not mentioned in your textbook”, OK?

I don’t know what Rep. Graves was thinking of in his next question. Major groups have appeared much more recently than the Cambrian—flowering plants and mammals, just to name two we think are kind of important. Maybe you’d better scratch out this question.

The next question is also mistaken! We’re going to show you lots of transitional forms from the fossil record: Basilosaurus, Homo erectus (calm down, Roger, or we’ll be sending you to the prinicipal’s office), Ichthyostega, I have a long list of really cool fossils to show you, and there are lots in your textbook. I think maybe Rep. Graves just forgot to read your book before putting in this question—so let’s delete this one, too.

We do wonder how we got these specific, complex instructions that built your body, so that is a good question, too. As you’ll see, we think the best answer is evolution.

The last sentence here makes me a bit sad. I’d like to think that someday you’ll all be able to help learn new things about life, but some people in your state’s government seem to be trying hard to make that difficult and confusing for you, and are making it difficult for me to teach you what you need to know. You’re all smart kids, though, so I think you can overcome these obstacles. Let’s leave that last sentence in and hope for the best.

So let’s see how the revised textbook disclaimer looks.

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory, which some scientists present asis a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans.



No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.



The word evolution may refer to many types of change. Evolution describes changes that occur within a species. (Populations of White moths, for example, may evolve into gray moths). This process is micro evolution, which can be observed and described as fact. Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing into another, such as reptiles into birdschange above the species level. This process, called macro evolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theoryfact. Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.



There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life, which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, known as the Cambrian Explosion? Why have no new major groups of living things appeared in the fossil record in a long time? Why do major groups of plants and animals have no transitional forms in the fossil record? How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body? Study hard and keep an open mind.  Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth.

Much better! We had to spend today fixing the mistakes of your state representatives, but maybe tomorrow we’ll be able to start working on biology. I sure wish politicians would leave the textbook writing to the authors and scientists.

Michelle! Please do not use language like that, and I don’t know why Rep. Graves is such a butthead. I didn’t vote for him, why don’t you ask your parents?


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/419/KXUxRT7f/

Comments:
#823: Ben — 02/26  at  04:35 PM
Ee-vuh-loo-shun? I dunno, still sounds a bit iffy to me. My brain hurts. I'm gonna go get a second opinion from an expert if you don't mind. Where's my priest...



#824: Joe — 02/26  at  05:29 PM
I'm with Michelle on this. No other word but "butthead" for Rep. Graves & his ilk. Is there an evolutionary explanation for homo buttheadis, or whatever the Latin would be?



#825: — 02/26  at  05:51 PM
I would call Graves Homo stultissimus, the most stupid man.



#826: Reed A. Cartwright — 02/26  at  06:34 PM
PZ,

"Culex molestus" is a misnomer. The mosquitoes in the London Underground were refered to as the "molestus" form, which apparantly how biolgists in england refer to them. The reason why they don't call them "Culex molestus" is that there is alread a "molestus" species in Australia.



#827: — 02/26  at  08:27 PM
I hate to be the grammar freak here, but if you take out "controversial" you're going to have to strike that comma after "theory" as well. ;)

Personally, I think we should trash the whole disclaimer and replace it with a FRANK ZAPPA WARNING STICKER!!!!!! :D :D :D

The classic:

WARNING/GUARANTEE This album contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress. In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics and ultraconservative political organizations violate your First Amendment rights by attempting to censor rock & roll albums. We feel that this is un-Constitutional and un-American.
As an alternative to these government-supported programs (designed to keep you docile and ignorant), Barking Pumpkin is pleased to provide stimulating digital audio entertainment for those of you who have outgrown the ordinary.

The language and concepts contained herein are GUARANTEED NOT TO CAUSE ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE GUY WITH THE HORNS AND THE POINTED STICK CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS.

This guarantee is as real as the threats of the video fundamentalists who use attacks on rock music in their attempt to transform America into a nation of check-mailing nincompoops (in the name of Jesus Christ). If there is a hell, its fires wait for them, not us.

Biologically revised:

WARNING/GUARANTEE This textbook contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress. In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics and ultraconservative political organizations violate your First Amendment rights by attempting to censor biology textbooks. We feel that this is un-Constitutional and un-American.
As an alternative to these government-supported programs (designed to keep you docile and ignorant), [name of publisher] is pleased to provide stimulating biological ideas for those of you who have outgrown the ordinary.

The language and concepts contained herein are GUARANTEED NOT TO CAUSE ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE GUY WITH THE HORNS AND THE POINTED STICK CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS.

This guarantee is as real as the threats of the video fundamentalists who use attacks on evolution in their attempt to transform America into a nation of check-mailing nincompoops (in the name of Jesus Christ). If there is a hell, its fires wait for them, not us.

By the way, have you ever considered teaching high school? It sounds like you'd be a hit!



#828: — 02/26  at  10:25 PM
Tomorrow's Science magazine has an update about creationism in the news section on page 1268 titled, "CREATIONISM: Georgia Backs Off a Bit, But in Other States Battles Heat Up". This article talks about the spread of creationism and includes a brief update about our fine state.

"... Moore says the issues are percolating in many other states. In Minnesota, for example, the latest state science teaching standards may be weakened if the legislature chooses to include a minority report authored by ID supporters. The current commissioner of education, Cheri Yecke, believes the decision on whether to teach creationism should be left up to local school districts. ..."

It is great to see Minnesota science standards mentioned in such a respected publication. Next time it would be good to be mentioned, because our standards are commendable.



#829: — 02/26  at  10:25 PM
Surely, this entry deserves the Talk.Origins Howler Award as the best piece of snarky rhetoric flung at a Bugblatter Beast of Jeebus in recent memory.



#830: Mrs Tilton — 02/27  at  05:00 AM
That was quite good. May I raise one minor objection? You wrote the white moths stay white and the gray ones stay white. Gray moths staying white is a phenomenon that raises important and difficult issues for a number of intellectual disciplines - metaphysics and linguistic analysis among them - but not, I think, for evolutionary theory. Or perhaps you'd meant to type 'gray' instead of 'white' as that last word...

Also, I might have pointed out to the class that, if the term 'reptile' is to be accorded any validity at all, we can't talk about reptiles changing into birds because birds are reptiles and always have been. But that would be getting away from the more general (and valid) point you were making, and perhaps it would be a bit hard on the kiddies to hit them over the head with Hennig in an 8th grade life sciences class. (Or maybe not; the concept isn't that hard, and they've all heard it already in watered-down and unexplained form when told that 'birds are really dinosaurs'; but my word, the English translation of Phylogenetic Systematics could do with a bit of translation into English, couldn't it?)

BTW, Ben, I have almost nothing at all good to say about the Roman Catholic church (to which I presume your 'priest' alludes), but they are very far from the main villains when it comes to creationism. Indeed, their current leader (about whom I otherwise have just as little good to say) has given Darwinian evolution about as strong an endorsement as somebody in his position could well give. I don't doubt that there are some RC creationists, but the sort of thinking that leads to the stickering of textbooks (and would lead to worse if it were able) is overwhelmingly a fundamentalist protestant phenomenon. So if you want a second opinion, you should consult not a priest but a sky-blue-polyester-suit-clad, bouffant-hairdo'd television evangelist.



#831: — 02/27  at  06:30 AM
Are birds reptiles? That depends on what qualifies as a "reptile".

In traditional classifications, birds are not reptiles.

But in comes cladistics. According to that school of thought, the only legitimate taxa include an ancestor with all its descendants (monophyletic). Those with more than one ancestor (polyphyletic) are illegitimate, as are those with only some descendants of an ancestor (paraphyletic).

Such taxa as Haemothermia [warm-blooded animals] are polyphyletic, and therefore illegitimate in most taxonomic systems.

Taxa like Reptilia are paraphyletic, and though OK in traditional systems, are not in cladistics.

However, cladists "rescue" such taxa by including all their traditionally-excluded descendants:

Reptilia(cladistic) = Reptilia(traditional) + Aves [birds]

Finally, Reptilia is joined by Amphibia, Sarcopterygii [lobe-finned fish], Osteichthyes [bony fish], Pisces [fish], Invertebrata, Protista, etc.



#832: Mrs Tilton — 02/27  at  10:36 AM
Well, yes, Loren; that's what I was alluding to. You've summed it up quite nicely.

Hennig makes sense to me, enough so that I've subscribed to Cladistics and faithfully beat myself over the head with it when it arrives. I confess, thgough, that the molecular analyses tend to go rather over my head (and there would be all sorts of trouble in any event if I tried to reproduce the results in the bathroom).

Serious question: has the cladistic view worked its way down into standard second-level school texts? In my day it certainly hadn't (but then I'm afraid in my day Hennig was still actively working this stuff out); my children are still too young to be learning anything at that level. All the texts I've bought in recent years are, I would guess, intended for entry- to mid-level undergraduates. I have no idea what's being taught in the secondary schools, bar the stuff that Prof. Myers complains about here; are the kids being taught any good things?



's avatar #833: PZ Myers — 02/27  at  11:35 AM
Wow, somebody actually read that long-winded tirade sufficiently to catch an error? I'm impressed. I've fixed it.


I've got two kids in jr. and sr. high right now, and what I can see about their biology education is that they simply aren't being taught much. There is one creationist teaching in our local high school, who, to her credit at least, explicitly avoids introducing that silliness into the classroom; but the content is still pretty dilute, and there is a lot of teaching to the lowest common denominator (who is unfortunately extremely low).

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#834: — 02/27  at  01:49 PM
Well, kudos to your local creationist for knowing how to draw the line between personal belief and what gets taught at school.

Germans (I live among them) have long prided themselves on the rigour of their secondary schools (the academically-directed ones, at any rate), but recent studies have made them swallow their pride a bit. Our older son has recently begun in one (they start at 5th grade round here), but the only science he'll have this year is geology. He has no interest in science save insofar as learning what makes engines run. But our daughter is enthralled by nature (did I tell you she found and correctly identified a Scytodes thoracica in my dresser drawer when she was five?) and I should hate to think she won't be given enough to feed her interest.



#835: Abiola Lapite — 02/27  at  02:38 PM
"Rep. Graves also has the definition of macroevolution wrong."

I don't know that it even makes sense to distinguish between "macroevolution" and "microevolution."



#836: Abiola Lapite — 02/27  at  02:43 PM
Let me hasten to add, I know you're really talking about speciation when you refer to "macroevolution", but, non-biologist though I may be, I do know enough to be aware that even speciation isn't a clear-cut process; we could have population A able to interbreed with population B and B able to interbreed with population C, but A unable to interbreed with C.

I understand that one can't get into this sort of thing with people who are still having difficulties coming to terms with the basics of natural selection, but I think it concedes too much to the creationists to even grant their "macro" vs. "micro" evolution distinction a smidgeon of legitimacy.



's avatar #837: PZ Myers — 02/27  at  02:48 PM
Well, I really do believe there is a valid micro/macro distinction, and that it is worth pursuing at higher levels of study. I agree that it is a mistake to try and introduce it in high school, when you're just trying to get the little rascals to grasp some very basic principles, and I also think the creationists are trying to introduce it for all the wrong reasons, and with absolutely no understanding of the concept themselves.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#838: — 02/27  at  06:21 PM
A delightful read.




#839: — 02/28  at  12:03 AM
PZ you are a warrior.



#840: — 02/28  at  12:03 AM
but I think it concedes too much to the creationists to even grant their “macro” vs. “micro” evolution distinction a smidgeon of legitimacy.

Not a fan of Punk Ek I take it. :}



#841: — 02/28  at  04:00 PM
I think equal intrusion is only fair. I'm working on a disclaimer to insert on the title page of new Bibles distributed by local churches and bookstores.



#842: — 02/29  at  12:23 AM
That would be nice. Here is a nice collection of Biblical-errancy pages.

Of course, it's possible to argue that Biblical errancy was divinely inspired, as a way of warning us not to be too literal-minded about the Bible...



#843: Victor Hutchison — 03/24  at  08:42 PM
Oklahoma List Serve on Evolution

Under ther auspices of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) each state and Canadian province now has a list serve to keep citizens aware of creationist movements.
The Oklahoma List Serve now has almost 400 subscribers and issues alerts for actions to take to prevent the introduction of crreationist materials into public schools to maintain the separation of church and state, news of creationist moves in other states that could impact Oklahoma, important resources for the teAching of evolution, links to new web sites (both those supporting evolution and those supporting creationist movements, etc. This is not a discussion form. To subscribe, go to:




#844: Victor Hutchison — 03/24  at  08:58 PM
CORRECTION : HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE OKLAHOMA EVOLUTION LIST SERVE:

GO TO:

NO SUBJECT ON SUBJECT LINE

IN MESSAGE BODY ENTER: SUBSCRIBE OKEVOL-L




Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Creationist activity

Previous entry: That bwessed awwangement

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college