Showing papers in "American Biology Teacher in 1973"

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.

Scorpions, Squirrels, or Sunflowers?.

Abstract: 'WHAT WOULD YOU MOST ENJOY observing or studying in a park or natural outdoor situation: scorpions, squirrels, or sunflowers? Or toads, tepees, or trees? Would you guess that little girls enjoy flowers more than boys do, or that boys would rather chase lizards than collect tree leaves? Naturalists and environmental educators have developed intuitive opinions on these and similar questions, based upon professional experiences in working with young people in the outdoors. I was no exception. However, in an effort to either substantiate or correct old beliefs through the acquisition of more systematic and reliable data, a study was devised to objectively measure one's preferences or predispositions for various aspects of the natural, outdoor environment. A primary objective of the study was to obtain knowledge that might assist interpreters and educators to more effectively plan programs and activities that recognize measured predispositions of children.

Evolution, Creation, and the Scientific Method

Abstract: MIANY EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE they possess evidence that evolution has occurred over time, and still occurs in their laboratory and field studies. Essentially this belief is based on the practice of most evolutionists of equating evolution (supposed end results) with natural selection (proposed process, or means). Evidently most evolutionists follow this practice because they agree with Gavin de Beer (1958) when he says, \"Only ignorance, neglect of truth, or prejudice could actuate those who, in the present state of knowledge, without discovering new facts in the laboratory or in the field, seek to impugn the scientific evidence for evolution.\" But a close, rigorous check of the de Beer article explicates the fact that he has equated literally the term \"natural selection\" with \"evolution.\" He thus has confused ends and means. Another example, among many that might be cited, of confusion of ends (evolution) and means (natural selection) is found in introductory statements by J. Maynard Smith, wherein he discusses \"The Status of Neo-Darwinism,\" in Towards a Theoretical Biology (1969). First he presents the idea that evolution occurs by (or is the result of) natural selection and Mendelian heredity. Then he proceeds to refer to supposed successful support of the theory of evolution. However, in actuality Smith merely itemizes possible advances in our understanding of natural selection and Mendelian heredity. Due to a sad lack of precision in scientific methodology, which results in failure to differentiate evolution (supposed end result) from natural selection (supposed process, or means), many evolutionists make the tacit assumption that substantial experimental and field data that may be used to support the concept of natural selection are useful also as support for evolution; that is, the origin of one kind of organism from another kind of organism.

Ambivalent Aspects of Evolution.

Abstract: W HY ALL THE FUSS about Darwinism? The answer lies in a double ambiguity of the word. First, the term "Darwinism" has been applied to two different ideas: natural selection and evolution. Second, the time reference is either to the past or the future. What is most important? What should we focus on? In the prologue to Nature and Man's Fate I made a remark that upset some of my colleagues: "It doesn't much matter whether you think man was created out of dust 6000 years ago or came from the apes a million years earlier; whether the story of Noah's Ark is true, or dinosaurs once lived. Believe what you will of evolution in the past: but you had jolly well better believe it will take place in the future if you hope to make political decisions that will give your descendents a reasonable chance to exist." It is now more than a decade since I wrote those words; and I have had occasion to reconsider them. They still express my personal view of what is most important; but I also see now (as I did not then) grounds for thinking that it does matter what man's origin was. I will presently explain why. But first I will try to explain why I think Darwinians should be more concerned with the future than with the past and why they should be more interested in natural selection than in evolution.

Evolution and the Law.

Abstract: THE SCOPES TRIAL, the Epperson case, and others give us the indication that the story of evolution and the law has been a series of court cases. Indeed, these have received much publicity; but other facets of the law have been used-perhaps to greater effect for the opponents of science. The independent status of many governmental agencies allows them to promulgate rules or regulations that, in terms of their designated interest, have the force of law. The California State Board of Education, for example, is appointed by the governor and is virtually autonomous in dealing with public education (four-year colleges excepted) in that state. Its ability to change paragraphs in its commissioned Science Framework for California Public Schools and subsequently to interpret such changes as demanding the inclusion of Biblical material in textbooks is one example of the independence of such a group. Another is the board's ability to bypass the recommendations of its own commission regarding textbooks and insist that the approved books be rewritten to its own standards. (See ABT 34 [7]: 411.) Such agencies have great power; and, because they are not directly responsible to either the public or the legislature, they create a situation wherein a few willful men can control the agency and direct it to do their bidding. Such groups have the ability, in effect, to create laws without going through legislative process.

The Heritage of Environmentalism.

Abstract: TO Orr= IGNORED in the secondary-school and college study of environmental issues is the historical background of these and related matters The following account is by no means intended to be a complete history of conservation and environmental concern in this country; however, it may provide some initial insights into the historical aspects and may introduce or recall some of the men and women who were forerunners deserving recognition I include a list of books and articles to which interested students can refer for more information about the human drama relating to nature

Environmental Education: the Central Need

Abstract: T HE INCREASING INTEREST in envirornental education has resulted in the proliferation of an enormous quantity and variety of curricular materials. These materials have been generated by many groups with differing aims and concerns: private industries pursuing their own interests, conservation groups claiming to serve the public good, and others. Some materials build on the tradition of "outdoor education"; others emphasize conservation, ecologic, or social themes. Few support a comprehensive, integrated curricular program. For the most part they are segments of programs-conceptual outlines, "helpful hints," student handouts and study materials, approved teaching methods, and so on. The materials tend to be focused around crisis issues, such as overpopulation, pollution, and resource depletion; but seldom are these contents combined into a single, coherent package. Does this outpouring of "environmental" materials have any educational merit? Is there something in the movement that is durable and worth preserving, that cuts across the limited specialties of its myriad programs? Or is the environmental push into education merely what Stillman (1972) has called "a symptom of psychosomatic disturbance in the body politic"? Superficially, the field appears too fractionated to be readily integrated, but closer examination reveals a number of interconnected themes and a shared perception of the world and of man's place in it. These can provide the basis for consolidating the best in environmental education. The environmental thrust in education is motivated by an apparent recognition of closed-system aspects of the spaceship Earth-a recognition that, for the foreseeable future, man is bound within a system that allows neither entry nor departure. Every decision or activity is approached by the environmentalist from within the framework of the laws that govern such a system. Environmental education foresees limitations to human exploits and a system of guiding principles not quite divine but of considerably greater import than simple cognitions. Differences and disagreements are rampant, but this shared perception is a unifying initial referent.

The Aquatic Ecosystem: A Unit Project

Abstract: TIS PAPER DESCRIBES a three-week project in which a biology class at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, Acton, Mass., studied a pond ecosystem during the spring of 1972. The students learned about the animal and plant populations, the physical factors affecting the ecosystem, and the many relationships within and between the biologic and physical components. At the conclusion of the project the students prepared a map depicting the results of their research.

Ohio State University Bio-Learning Center Uses the AT Method.

Abstract: THE OHIO STATE UNivERSrry College of Biological Sciences' introductory-biology program has developed a Bio-Learning Center for individualized instruction Since the pilot program was initiated, in summer quarter 1969, the college has supported the idea of individualized instruction in its introductory courses It is our contention that the teachinglearning situation can be enhanced by a curriculum that stresses flexibility for students as well as personal responsibility This paper explains the instructional strategy used on the Columbus campus of OSU and on three of its four outlying regional campuses In the nature of things, several other strategies were tested and rejected in the past three years; they will not be reported here However, the use of the systems concept in the development of the introductory-biology program will be described Furthermore, although we have identified some problems in curricular change, it is not my intention to answer the multitude of questions about instruction Rather, I would like to encourage creative people on all campuses to use their talents in their commitment to education and to carry out research in learning-teaching Those who have achieved success in developing

Using the Computer in Evolution Studies.

Abstract: A NUMBER OF EXERCISES available to biology teachers demonstrate the genetic equilibrium predicted by the Hardy-Weinberg principle and the subsequent effects of violating any of its premises. One of my favorites has been a modification of an exercise presented in the laboratory guide to Life: an Introduction to Biology, by G. G. Simpson and W. S. Beck (1965: Harcourt, Brace & World, New York; p. 153). But although this exercise is one of the best I have seen for this purpose, even the relatively simple mathematics required has tended to overshadow the idea under investigation. To help alleviate this problem, I have turned to the computer. Our school possesses a terminal for Time-Shared Basic, a system that is becoming familiar to many secondary schools and colleges. Its advantages are too numerous to detail here, except to note its simplicity of operation. However, no programs seemed to be available for a study of changing gene-frequencies; so I became interested in designing a series of programs to simulate the exercise my classes had been doing manually.