Teaching Evolution in American Schools –

We have seen many conflicting views on HOW science, and in particular Evolution Theory is being presented to students in school.

My reason for starting this topic is to try and get to the bottom of what is being taught, and the methods used. I understand that the United States does not have a centralized education system per say, but it does have organizations and policies in place that help policy makers with their decisions on science issues.

My focus is on the organizations and policies put in place at the highest levels, and whether or not those ideas are “trickling down” to the classroom. Please try and keep as close to that topic as you can.



NSF: <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp" target="_blank">http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp</a>

National Science Board Statement: <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1999/nsb99149/nsb99149.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1999/nsb99149/nsb99149.htm</a>





NAS: <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?p...ABOUT_main_page" target="_blank">http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?p...ABOUT_main_page</a>
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition: <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024" target="_blank">http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024</a>









NRC: <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.htm" target="_blank">http://sites.nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.htm</a>
National Science Education Standards: <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4962" target="_blank">http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4962</a>



I've been on these forums for a few years now and keep hearing the same argument come up time and again "Evolution is taught as fact" or "it says in our textbook".

Yet I read through some of the material produced by the National Research Council, and other top U.S. science organizations, and I can see very clearly that it is not just about adding updated content to the classrooms. What they really are looking for is teaching students how to understand and use science to come up with their own conclusions.

What I would like to find out through this thread, is how much of the material and methods recommended by these organizations actually makes it into the classroom?

I probably missed a few organizations, but what I have tried to present, is an outline of what I think the leaders in American science believe SHOULD be taught in science classes and HOW it should be taught.

Is it being done ?, or am I totally off the mark here?

*added some additional text to try and clarify my post

You are about to be bombarded by a slew of people who are the product of backwards educational systemsthat don't teach evolutionary theory properly, and that might not teach any science properly.

We're behind much of the rest of the developed world in science for a reason, and you're about to get an illustration of why.

Ok, hit it!

O.k. hit it, see Cosmic Agenda, dumbing down the masses, confusion , Well Neognosis did warn you! And really what did you expect?..

My husband and I were talking about this a few days ago and being from the 'bible belt' neither of us know anyone that was taught creationism as opposed to evolution. I graduated in '80 and he graduated in '71. There has always been a loud minority group that manage to get the media's attention by trying to get creationism taught, but to no avail.

Maybe the vocal yankees had to fight the ignorance up north.

Actually, the only place I come across people who don't accept evolution are in the handfull of hard right wing friends I have, and online.

I can second Michelle, only with the view of Illinois, they did not even have a word for the bible legends when my wife and I graduated in '73.

The problem is that there is a minority that is afraid of loosing their influence and that makes them vocal.

The problem is that with mumbo-jumbo they will loose more of their influence.

alll Ie lerned ine pubic skool wuz Evolution
apparently science changes, and what we learned in the 90's as fact isn't true anymore or something... oh, just misunderstood... altered, no Updated... wait, streamlined? Perfected? meh, it'll be different in a year again.
I lerned here that Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang or abiogenesis so I'm just showing my lack of education even bringing them up.
Also learned promoting one side and scilencing any other ideas is the propper thing to do if evolution is to be put in its rightful place where it belongs as the only concept for progressive humanity.

I just wanted to add, no offense to anyones religion, but I prefer that they lose their influence when it comes to education. If there were enough time in the day I would say it could be an elective, however I don't think there is.

Ah, here we go:



What you should have learned is the scientific method and that only theories that have evidence validated by the scientific method are accepted in a science class.

Your post is silly anyway. First you lambast science for making revisions as further evidence is discovered, then in the next paragraph you slam science for not allowing new ideas? You contradict yourself and you don't make any sense. What's your real agenda?

Science is VERY good at examining other ideas and theories IF THERE'S EVIDENCE FOR THEM.

Creationists infuriate me when they cry that science refuses to consider other points of view. yes, that's because science only entertains theories for which there is EVIDENCE.

(ps, your kid being born or an apple tree in your backyard, while they may appear miraculous for some of you, fall short of evidence for intelligent design.)

Also, you NEVER learned anything in the 90's as FACT that isn't true to day. You only learned FACT as FACT. What changes, if ANYTHING, is the theory when new evidence is discovered. FACT is taught as FACT in a science class only when it is FACT. Theory is taught as theory, and theory can be modified as new fact comes to light.

How could I tell that Neognosis came in here looking for an argument and someone to insult, which he did before he had cause?

I don't agree with your statement at all.

If you read the standards produced by the NRC:

"LEARNING SCIENCE IS AN ACTIVE PROCESS. Learning science is something students do, not something that is done to them. In learning science, students describe objects and events, ask questions, acquire knowledge, construct explanations of natural phenomena, test those explanations in many different ways, and communicate their ideas to others.

In the National Science Education Standards, the term "active process" implies physical and mental activity. Hands-on activities are not enough—students also must have "minds-on" experiences.

Learning science is something students do, not something that is done to them.


Science teaching must involve students in inquiry-oriented investigations in which they interact with their teachers and peers. Students establish connections between their current knowledge of science and the scientific knowledge found in many sources; they apply science content to new questions; they engage in problem solving, planning, decision making, and group discussions; and they experience assessments that are consistent with an active approach to learning.

Emphasizing active science learning means shifting emphasis away from teachers presenting information and covering science topics."

Evolution is part of science, if you take out the mystery behind the method and teach people how to use it, they form their own opinions.

Prove your theory,s Neognosis? or go away!

"Lucy" is Fact, cannot be argued against.

The basic premise is there and it's a good one. I would have to say it depends on the teacher. I had some fantastic, career science teachers and then I had a couple that were coaches and also had to teach an academic class. They, basically, read the next days lesson the day before...when we were. You also have to take into account that some of the books we were learning from could be twenty years old. By the time we were being taught, some of the evolutionary theories were outdated and had changed...as it is with new discoveries even today.

I guess I'm just not clear what you want.

Having had the good fortune to be accepted into a science magnet program in high school and take some advanced biology classes in college, I'm lucky to have gotten actually accurate and up to date information on evolutionary biology. We've gone through the evidence and processes that past researchers used to reach their conclusions and never got any of the "ladder of evolution" or "progress" stuff that is often expounded by teachers who don't know what they're talking about.

Currently I am learning a great deal about phylogenetic analysis of organisms - looking at characteristics and DNA and reconstructing their evolutionary relationships. It's fascinating stuff. There is actually a bit of disagreement as to the exact relationship between some of the branches of Eukaryotes... no one's quite sure when a few esoteric branches split off, and the order in which a few characteristics of several different groups appeared. Never the less, it is generally agreed that all eukaryotes descend from a common ancestor, and that all life on earth (eukaryotes, bacteria, and archaea) arose from a common pool of organisms (not necessarily just one).

I don't know, maybe you want him to? The most insulting thing he wrote was "your post is silly"; there's no argument there!

What's "fact" about Lucy? Bones that are X years old are FACT. What those bones are, where they fit in, and what they mean to us are "theory" supported by evidence.

If we discover a new hominid species, and we are relatively certain of where it fits into the timeline, the theory will change a little to accomodate new evidence. Because theories are based on evidence.

There is no evidence for intelligent design. Thus, it is a belief some people hold. It shoudl be taught in a social studies or religious studies class, not in a science class, where theories with supporting scientific evidence are taught.

it's as simple as that.




Prove MY theory,s?

MY THEORIES?

I haven't presented a theory that is "mine." I merely repeat what the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept as the most credible theory supported by overwhelming ammounts of evidence.

If you want a crash course in evolutionary biology, do what I did and take a college level zoology or bio or anthro class at your local community college.

That's cool. You asked:


I answered from my take. Disagree with me all you want.


I see that.


meh, I could take offense at any number of things probably never crossed your mind but as I watch him stroke his ego I think well... he's happy in his thoughts so no sense mucking it. As time passes we all learn more. Hopefully...

He wasn't there when I was laughed at in my college biology class for stating my belief in the possibility of chimeras. Laughter is healthy, do what I can.

Ok, that makes things much more clear. I'm not going to argue the most widely accepted theory of human origin with a person who believes in chimeras.

This is the "science and technology" part of the forum. You can bet I'm going to get a little bit blunt when people who think that they know better than the overwhelming majority of scientists who study this as their lives work come around and spread misinformation.

My apologies of you find my statements "insulting." I'm just not going to be gentle when the ignorance starts flying. And if calling a post "silly" is insulting, I suggest you grow a thicker skin, because that was far nicer than what my initial reaction was.

I never said it was insulting. Thought to myself it was comical, but not insulting. Have to take into consideration where the statements are coming from to be insulted and I see the reading comprehension level is... anyway.

In your opinion, chimeras are an impossibility. No problem. Believe that all you want. Don't pop a vein.

There is no forest in all those trees.

That's pretty much what I was looking for, I'll go back and edit my OP to make things a little clearer.

I've been on these forums for a few years now and keep hearing the same argument come up time and again "Evolution is taught as fact" or "it says in our textbook".

Yet I read through some of the material produced by the National Research Council, and other top U.S. science organizations, and I can see very clearly that it is not just about adding updated content to the classrooms. What they really are looking for is teaching students how to understand and use science to come up with their own conclusions.

What I would like to find out through this thread, is how much of the material and methods recommended by these organizations actually makes it into the classroom?

Can't comment on the situation in the USA. I went to a secondary (e.g. state) school in the UK between 1976 and 1982 (though it seemed much longer than that ). We where taught pure Darwinian evolution in Biology. Religion didn't come into it.

I remember chatting to a Christian friend of mine in the 6th form (age 16-18) about this, and how it clashed with Creationism and the bible. He just smiled and stated that all of the geological/paleantological evidence (bones, carbon dating etc) was just put there by God to annoy scientists. I couldn't really argue with that... so I had to settle with just setting fire to him.

Meow Purr.

In some schools it obviously is - my classes gave me a great foundation in evolotionary biology and the modern evolutionary synthesis. At the same time, talking with some friends and family members who went to other schools made it abundantly clear that most people were being taught sheer crap.

*edit*

That's probably why creationist thought is running rampant in the United States - most people don't understand what biological evolution IS. Even otherwise smart people I know have the false impression that there is some kind of "controversy" in the scientific community, or that the theory of evolution is based entirely on Darwin's observations, or use horribly outdated and inapplicable examples of evolution, etc etc etc.

That has absoultely been my experience as well.

Some time ago I became aware that there was a second possible solution to the evolution equations and have taken in interest in the issue of how evolution is presented. (If you are interested in the second solution read the paper at nsof.co.nz - it and neo-Darwinism make some very different statistical predictions and the data supports the existence of the second type of mechanisms).

The fundamental issue is, as has been recognised for a long time, that the only only valid evidence for the correctness of a scientific theory is the degree to which its predictions/laws/mathematics match observations of the real world. Neo-Darwinism fares surprisingly badly on this front. There are numerous issues in evolution that are ignored because the principle groups raising them are creationists and fellow travellers. While the basic position from which creationists start is, to put it mildly, irrational and unscientific, several of the points raised are worth considering.

One of the major issues raised is the question of whether neo-Darwinism is a religion. If you take the issue of religion as concerning issues such as man's place in the universe then the answer has to be yes. The simplified version of neo-Darwinism has evolution occurring as the result of natural selection acting on random genetic changes. The key word here is "random". This word has totally different implications in religion, science, and for that matter, ordinary discourse. I once spent some time reading some theology (in was filed next to philosophy in the library and had titles sounding relevant to an essay topic) and can assure you that there some weird understandings of random. In ordinary usage random is often used to mean wholly or partially unpredictable, wholly or partially without purpose, wholly or partially irrational etc. The correct usage in a science is very specific - to say something is random in the context of a science is to say that the relevant probability calculations will give the correct predictions. The issue of purpose or rationality does not arise, these issues do not affect the calculation of a prediction in any way and therefore cannot affect either the predictions of the science or its correctness. Issues of purpose arise only in the context of the "religious" view one takes of the world after on has taken on board various scientific theories.

If you look at popular and "junior" versions of evolutionary theory and you ask the question "is the burden of the story purposelessness or statistical accuracy?" the answer has to be purposelessness. It is interesting to note that the statistical accuracy of the predictions is essentially non-existent. While I would entirely agree with anyone who points out that the simplest explanation for something conforming to the statistical distributions of randomness is that it is actually random this assumption is not a requirement of evolutionary theory, only of the "religious" viewpoint based on it. This explains the peculiar pattern of evolutionary discussion. Many of the participants, the "Darwinists", are taking a basically religious position on the issue and, for this purpose the existing, simplified versions of neo-Darwinism function perfectly as justification and they will violently, emphatically and irrationally reject any criticism of the theory. I belong to the minority that regard the statistical accuracy as paramount. I would like to see a theory that did not have so many glaring inconsistencies and improbabilities. As I have said above, I believe that it is impossible to ge good statistical matches without including a second class of evolutionary mechanisms.

A brief summary of my alternative views can be seen in the observation that active, goal directed evolution by an organism is possible if the following three conditions are met: 1) At the time of evolution, for the specific organism evolving there is something detectable in its environment that can act as a trigger or stimulus. 2) There must be a behaviour available to the organism that would tend to move its genome in a beneficial direction. 3) The combination of stimulus and possible behaviour must occur with sufficient frequency for those organisms with an appropriate response to the stimulus to be naturally selected. These conditions can be met, there are frequent environmental changes following which some species are disadvantaged and are presented with the evidence that some other, more successful, species have a more functional collection of genetic mechanisms than the disadvantaged species, and for those disadvantaged species the acquisition of genetic material from a successful species by any form of lateral gene transfer will sometimes move their genome in a desirable direction. This allows natural selection of stress related adoption of lateral gene transfer as a selected evolutionary behaviour.