American Biology Teacher 

About: American Biology Teacher is an academic journal published by University of California Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Science education & Higher education. It has an ISSN identifier of 0002-7685. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 6014 publications have been published receiving 33405 citations. The journal is also known as: Biology teacher.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Abstract: As RECENTLY AS 1966, sheik Abd el Aziz bin Baz asked the king of Saudi Arabia to suppress a heresy that was spreading in his land. Wrote the sheik: "The Holy Koran, the Prophet's teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit ... and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind. ... Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet." The good sheik evidently holds the Copernican theory to be a "mere theory," not a "fact." In this he is technically correct. A theory can be verified by a mass of facts, but it becomes a proven theory, not a fact. The sheik was perhaps unaware that the Space Age had begun before he asked the king to suppress the Copernican heresy. The sphericity of the earth had been seen by astronauts, and even by many earth-bound people on their television screens. Perhaps the sheik could retort that those who venture beyond the confines of God's earth suffer hallucinations, and that the earth is really flat. Parts of the Copernican world model, such as the contention that the earth rotates around the sun, and not vice versa, have not been verified by direct observations even to the extent the sphericity of the earth has been. Yet scientists accept the model as an accurate representation of reality. Why? Because it makes sense of a multitude of facts which are otherwise meaningless or extravagant. To nonspecialists most of these facts are unfamiliar. Why then do we accept the "mere theory" that the earth is a sphere revolving around a spherical sun? Are we simply submitting to authority? Not quite: we know that those who took time to study the evidence found it convincing. The good sheik is probably ignorant of the evidence. Even more likely, he is so hopelessly biased that no amount of evidence would impress him. Anyway, it would be sheer waste of time to attempt to convince him. The Koran and the Bible do not contradict Copernicus, nor does Copernicus contradict them. It is ludicrous to mistake the Bible and the Koran for primers of natural science. They treat of matters even more important: the meaning of man and his relations to God. They are written in poetic symbols that were understandable to people of the age when they were written, as well as to peoples of all other ages. The king of Arabia did not comply with the sheik's demand. He knew that some people fear enlightenment, because enlightenment threatens their vested interests. Education is not to be used to promote obscurantism. The earth is not the geometric center of the universe, although it may be its spiritual center. It is a mere speck of dust in cosmic spaces. Contrary to Bishop Ussher's calculations, the world did not appear in approximately its present state in 4004 B.C. The estimates of the age of the universe given by modern cosmologists are still only rough approximations, which are revised (usually upward) as the methods of estimation are refined. Some cosmologists take the universe to be about 10 billion years old; others suppose that it may have existed, and will continue to exist, eternally. The origin of life on earth is dated tentatively between 3 and 5 billion years ago; manlike beings appeared relatively quite recently, between 2 and 4 million years ago. The estimates of the age of the earth, of the duration of the geologic and paleontologic eras, and of the antiquity of man's ancestors are now based mainly on radiometric evidence-the proportions of isotopes of certain chemical elements in rocks suitable for such studies.

The Concept of Environmental Education

Abstract: I Tithin the past 50 years the United States has become a predominantly urban nation, both in thought and in physical character. Large and middle-sized communities, many within complex urban regions, have evolved to where over 70% of this country's population resides on 1.5% of the nation's land surface. By 1980, eight out of ten Americans will probably live in an urban environment. Consequently, the independent rural-oriented living that once characterized this country's social and political heritage is no longer a dominating influence in the lives of most Americans. In rural surroundings, direct daily contact with the basic natural resources was prevalent, especially within man's immediate environment. As man became progressively urbanized, his intimate association and interaction with natural resources diminished and, with it, his awareness of his dependency on them. Yet it is imperative that man, wherever he lives, comprehend that his welfare is dependent upon the proper management and use of these resources. Man should also have an awareness and understanding of his community and its associated problems. Our communities are being plagued with problems such as: lack of comprehensive environmental planning; indiscriminate use of pesticides; community blight; air and water pollution; traffic congestion; and the lack of institutional arrangements needed to cope effectively with environmental problems. While these problems are legitimate concerns of community governmental officials and planners, the responsibility for their solution rests, to a large extent, with citizens. To an increasing extent citizens are being asked to make decisions that affect (directly and indirectly) their environment. Specifically, citizens make these decisions as they cast votes on community issues; as they elect representatives to policy-making bodies; as they directly act upon the environment itself. Citizens can be effective in influencing sound policy in other ways. They can ask informed questions, at the proper time, of the right people. They can serve on advisory and policy-making committees. They can support sound legislation directed at resolving environmental problems. To perform these tasks effectively, it is vital that the citizenry be knowledgeable concerning their biophysical environment and associated problems, aware of how they can help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward effective solutions. Most current programs in conservation education are oriented primarily to basic resources; they do not focus on community environment and its associated problems. Furthermore, few programs emphasize the role of the citizen in working, both individually and collectively, toward the solution of problems that affect our well-being. There is a vital need for an educational approach that effectively educates man regarding his relationship to the total environment. The Supreme Court decision regarding the one-

Preventing Plant Blindness

Abstract: Editor: Randy Moore, Biology Department, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, Phone: (502) 852-6490, E-mail: randy.moore@louisville.edu Managing Editor: Christine Chantry Associate Editor: Kris Collum Publisher: Wayne W. Carley Editorial Staff: Kay Acevedo, Carmen Altamirano, Cheryl Merrill ABT Produiction Office: 11250 Roger Bacon Drive, #19, Reston, VA 20190-5202, Phone: (703) 471-1134, Fax: (703) 435-5582, E-mail: NABTer@aol.com, Web site: www.nabt.org

Evolutionary Theory, the Nature of Science & High School Biology Teachers: Critical Relationships

Abstract: WITHOUT question the most powerful theory within the field of biology is that of evolution. Evolutionary theory allows for the investigation of a broad spectrum of interesting biological questions in a scientifically meaningful way. It provides a mechanism for exploration of the intriguing ‘‘hows’’ and ‘‘whys’’ we are compelled to ask concerning the tremendous diversity of life. With it, the multitude of traits and behaviors of organisms take on meaning. Indeed, as Dobzhansky (1973) elegantly stated, ‘‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution’’ (p. 125). Yet, despite the fact that evolutionary theory is extremely well-supported and non-controversial within the scientific community, it has not been as well received by the general public. Several studies reveal that a sizable portion of Americans have little understanding of evolutionary theory and reject it as a valid explanation of the current state of life (Ching 1984; Edwords 1981a; Edwords 1981b; Holden, 1988; National Science Board 1989). This difference in understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory between the scientific community and the general public represents more than a lag between the generation of knowledge in a discipline and its dissemination to the public through the educational system. Rather, it represents a gulf in understanding that has not been successfully bridged through a century of science education. The factors contributing to this gulf are complex and manifold. The teaching of evolutionary theory in public high schools has been embroiled in controversy throughout the century. Restrictive board of education policies, opposition from religious groups, school administrators, and community members, inadequate textbook coverage, and teachers’ own personal religious beliefs have contributed to the documented de-emphasis of evolution in the high school biology