Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
Critical Analysis of Evolution – Grade 10
Life Sciences
Benchmark H
Describe a foundation of biological evolution as the change in gene frequency of a population over time. Explain the historical and current scientific developments, mechanisms and processes of biological evolution. Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)
Indicator 23
Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)
Scientific Ways of Knowing
Benchmark A
Explain that scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world.
Indicator 2
Describe that scientists may disagree about explanations of phenomena, about interpretation of data or about the value of rival theories, but they do agree that questioning, response to criticism and open communication are integral to the process of science.
Indicator 3
Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
Lesson Summary:
This lesson allows students to critically analyze five different aspects of evolutionary theory. As new scientific data emerge, scientists’ understandings of the natural world may become enhanced, modified or even changed all together. Using library and Internet sources, groups of students will conduct background research for one of the aspects of evolution in preparation for a critical analysis discussion. Students also will listen to, and take notes on, their classmates' critical analyses of evolution theory.
Estimated Duration: Four to six hours
Commentary:
This lesson should be used midway or toward the end of a unit on evolution. This will allow students to “carry over” their knowledge of basic evolutionary concepts into this lesson. The strength of this lesson lies in having students research topics that interest them about evolutionary biology. Students are encouraged to consider the research and discuss their findings with fellow students.
Pre-Assessment:
· The following items can be used to stimulate dialogue with the students.
· Instruct students to copy the following items from the chalkboard in their science lab notebook.
1. Describe anomalies and explain why they exist.
2. Are there any benefits to exploring scientific anomalies?
3. How do scientists make and test predictions?
4. How do scientists critically analyze conflicting data?
5. Define the following terms in your own words:
§ Theory
§ Critical analysis
§ Natural selection
§ Biological evolution
§ Macroevolution
§ Microevolution
· Direct students to respond to the questions in their science notebook in as much detail as possible leaving space to record information from the ensuing dialogue to add to their notes.
Scoring Guidelines:
Collect pre-assessments and evaluate for indication of prior knowledge and/or misconception. Sample definitions for question five in the pre-assessment include, but are not limited to, the following:
· Theory
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
· Critical analysis
The separation of an intellectual idea into its constituent parts for the purpose of a careful, exact evaluation and judgment about those parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole. (This definition combines the definition for critical and analysis.)
· Natural selection
The principle that in a given environment, individuals having characteristics that aid survival will produce more offspring, and the proportion of individuals having such characteristics will increase with each succeeding generation.
· Biological evolution
Changes in the genetic composition of a population through successive generations.
· Macroevolution
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
· Microevolution
Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
Post-Assessment:
Instructional Procedures:
Instructional Tip:
Scientists make a distinction between two areas of evolutionary theory. First, scientists consider mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow (immigration and emigration) as the processes that generate evolutionary changes in organisms and populations. Second, the theory of universal common descent describes the historical pattern of biological change. This theory maintains that all living forms have descended from earlier living forms and ultimately from a single common ancestor. Darwin envisioned the theory of universal common descent as a necessary result of evolutionary changes in organisms and populations, and represented it in his branching tree of life. Students will investigate and analyze these two areas of evolutionary theory in this lesson.
In addition to the distinctions between different areas of evolutionary theory, scientists also find it helpful to distinguish amounts of biological change or evolution. Microevolution refers to evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. These terms are helpful distinctions in the course of analyzing evolutionary theory. These terms have appeared in OhioLink research databases, numerous Internet sites, and biology and evolution textbooks. Though “micro” and “macro” are prefixes, it is quite clear that the scientific community recognizes and acknowledges the distinction between the words. To help ensure academic clarity, this lesson distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. Teachers may need to provide support to students to help them understand this distinction throughout the lesson.
Student Engagement
· Spontaneous generation versus biogenesis
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is Francesco Redi’s observation that flies must contact meat in order for maggots to appear on the meat.
· Geocentric versus Heliocentric
Several pieces of data could be used. One example is the observed phases of Venus.
Instructional Tip:
Alternative strategies for beginning this lesson could be to engage students in a Socratic discussion or a mini-lecture. See the Web site for student research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory for guidelines on the Socratic method. The Web address is listed in the Technology Connections section.
Student Research
Aspect 1: Homology (anatomical and molecular)
Aspect 2: Fossil Record
Aspect 3: Anti-Biotic Resistance
Aspect 4: Peppered Moths
Aspect 5: Endosymbiosis
Instructional Tip:
Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet, has questions that can be applied to all five aspects. This will help students become familiar with the data, and therefore be able to critically analyze the evidence for either the supporting side or the challenging side. As they complete the worksheet, the group members may all work together on each question, or divide the questions among themselves and then share their findings as a group.
Instructional Tip:
Encourage all students to participate in the critical analysis activity because the experience will be a learning opportunity. Be prepared, however, to distribute alternate assignments to students who do not want to participate.
Differentiated Instructional Support:
Instruction is differentiated according to learner needs, to help all learners either meet the intent of the specified indicator(s) or, if the indicator is already met, to advance beyond the specified indicator(s).
Extension:
Have students consider other aspects of evolutionary biology that are critically analyzed by scientists. Possible topics include:
|
|
|
|
Interdisciplinary Connections: |
|
|
Social Studies Skills and Methods Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
Benchmark A |
Evaluate the reliability and credibility of sources. |
|
Indicator 1 |
Determine the credibility of sources by considering the following: a. The qualifications and reputation of the writer; b. Agreement with other credible sources; c. Recognition of stereotypes; d. Accuracy and consistency of sources; e. The circumstances in which the author prepared the source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
English Language Arts Research Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
Benchmark B |
Evaluate the usefulness and credibility of data and sources. |
|
Indicator 3 |
Determine the accuracy of sources and the credibility of the author by analyzing the sources’ validity (e.g., authority, accuracy, objectivity, publication date and coverage, etc.). |
|
Benchmark C |
Organize information from various resources and select appropriate sources to support central ideas, concepts and themes. |
|
Indicator 2 |
Identify appropriate sources and gather relevant information from multiple sources (e.g., school library catalogs, online databases, electronic resources and Internet-based resources). |
|
Indicator 4 |
Evaluate and systematically organize important information, and select appropriate sources to support central ideas, concepts and themes. |
Materials and Resources:
The inclusion of a specific resource in any lesson formulated by the Ohio Department of Education should not be interpreted as an endorsement of that particular resource, or any of its contents, by the Ohio Department of Education. The Ohio Department of Education does not endorse any particular resource. The Web addresses listed are for a given site’s main page, therefore, it may be necessary to search within that site to find the specific information required for a given lesson. Please note that information published on the Internet changes over time, therefore the links provided may no longer contain the specific information related to a given lesson. Teachers are advised to preview all sites before using them with students.
For the teacher: attachments, resource materials such as the Internet, World Wide Web, library resources
For the student: attachments, resource materials such as the Internet, World Wide Web, library resources
Vocabulary:
Technology Connections:
Research Connections:
Marzano, R. et al. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria: Associat ion for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2001.
General Tips:
1. Ayala, Francisco, "The Mechanisms of Evolution." Scientific American, 239:3 (1978): 56-69.
Attachments:
Attachment A, Five Aspects of Evolution
Attachment B, Investigative Worksheet
Attachment A
Five Aspects of Evolution
Aspect 1: Homology
Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.
Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Different animals have very similar anatomical and genetic structures. This suggests that these animals share a common ancestor from which they inherited the genes to build these anatomical structures. Evolutionary biologists call similarities that are due to common ancestry “homologies.” For example, the genes that produce hemoglobin molecules (an oxygen carrying protein) in chimps and humans are at least 98% identical in sequence. As another example, bats, humans, horses, porpoises and moles all share a forelimb that has the same pattern of bone structure and organization. The hemoglobin molecule and the “pentadactyl limb” provide evidence for common ancestors. Also, the genetic code is universal, suggesting that a common ancestor is the source.
Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Some scientists think similarities in anatomical and genetic structure reflect similar functional needs in different animals, not common ancestry. The nucleotide sequence of hemoglobin DNA is very similar between chimps and humans, but this may be because they provide the same function for both animals. Also, if similar anatomical structures really are the result of a shared evolutionary ancestry, then similar anatomical structures should be produced by related genes and patterns of embryological development. However, sometimes, similar anatomical structures in different animals are built from different genes and by different pathways of embryological development. Scientists can use these different anatomical structures and genes to build versions of Darwin family trees that will not match each other. This shows that diverse forms of life may have different ancestry.
Aspect 2: Fossil Record
Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.
Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The fossil record shows an increase in the complexity of living forms from simple one-celled organisms, to the first simple plants and animals, to the diverse and complex organisms that live on Earth today. This pattern suggests that later forms evolved from earlier simple forms over long periods of geological time. Macroevolution is the large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. The slow transformations are reflected in transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx (a reptile-like bird) and mammal-like reptiles. These transitional fossils bridge the gap from one species to another species and from one branch on the tree of life to another.
Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Transitional fossils are rare in the fossil record. A growing number of scientists now question that Archaeopteryx and other transitional fossils really are transitional forms. The fossil record as a whole shows that major evolutionary changes took place suddenly over brief periods of time followed by longer periods of “stasis” during which no significant change in form or transitional organisms appeared (Punctuated Equilibria). The “Cambrian explosion” of animal phyla is the best known, but not the only example, of the sudden appearance of new biological forms in the fossil record.
Aspect 3: Antibiotic Resistance
Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.
Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The number of strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as of Staphylococcus aureus, have significantly increased in number over time. Antibiotics used by patients to eliminate disease-causing bacterial organisms have facilitated this change. When some bacteria acquire a mutation that allows them to survive in the presence of antibiotics, they begin to survive in greater numbers than those that do not have this mutation-induced resistance. This shows how environmental changes and natural selection can produce significant changes in populations and species over time.
Brief Challenging Sample Answer: The increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains demonstrates the power of natural selection to produce small but limited changes in populations and species. It does not demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce new forms of life. Although new strains of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, the speciation of bacteria (prokaryotes) has not been observed, and neither has the evolution of bacteria into more complex eukaryotes. Thus, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance demonstrates microevolution.
Aspect 4: Peppered Moths (Biston betularia)
Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.
Brief Supporting Sample Answer: During the industrial revolution in England, more soot was released into the air. As a result, the tree trunks in the woodlands grew darker in color. This environmental change also produced a change in the population of English peppered moths (scientifically known as Biston betularia). Studies during the 1950s have suggested a reason for this change. It was observed that light-colored moths resting on dark-colored tree trunks were readily eaten by birds. They had become more visible by their predators compared to their dark-colored counterparts. This different exposure to predation explained why the light-colored moths died with greater frequency when pollution darkened the forest. It also explained why light-colored moths later made a “comeback” when air quality improved in England. This whole situation demonstrates how the process of natural selection can change the features of a population over time.
Brief Challenging Sample Answer: English peppered moths show that environmental changes can produce microevolutionary changes within a population. They do not show that natural selection can produce major new features or forms of life, or a new species for that matter—i.e., macroevolutionary changes. From the beginning of the industrial revolution, English peppered moths came in both light and dark varieties. After the pollution decreased, dark and light varieties still existed. All that changed during this time was the relative proportion of the two traits within the population. No new features and no new species emerged. In addition, recent scientific articles have questioned the factual basis of the study performed during the 1950s. Scientists have learned that peppered moths do not actually rest on tree trunks. This has raised questions about whether color changes in the moth population were actually caused by differences in exposure to predatory birds.
Aspect 5: Endosymbiosis (formation of cellular organelles)
Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.
Brief Supporting Sample Answer: Complex eukaryotic cells contain organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria. These organelles have their own DNA. This suggests that bacterial cells may have become established in cells that were ancestral to eukaryotes. These smaller cells existed for a time in a symbiotic relationship within the larger cell. Later, the smaller cell evolved into separate organelles within the eukaryotic ancestors. The separate organelles, chloroplast and mitochondria, within modern eukaryotes stand as evidence of this evolutionary change.
Brief Challenging Sample Answer: Laboratory tests have not yet demonstrated that small bacteria (prokaryotic cells) can change into separate organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts within larger bacterial cells. When smaller bacterial cells (prokaryotes) are absorbed by larger bacterial cells, they are usually destroyed by digestion. Although some bacterial cells (prokaryotes) can occasionally live in eukaryotes, scientists have not observed these cells changing into organelles such as mitochondria or chloroplasts.
Attachment B
This activity will help you to prepare for the critical analysis activity. Complete the following table by addressing the following points when you record supporting and challenging data for one aspect of evolution. Record your responses on the appropriate space on the chart.
They're going to need them in Ohio.
In ninth-grade journalism (English) units, students are often given factually incorrect statements and pictures to study propaganda.
I have no problem with that, as long as the statements are within the students' ability to check and reason about.
But when someone asserts from a position of authority that there is a scientific controversy over the lack of transitional fossils, that is both factually incorrect and insidious. When someone asserts from a position of authority that the lack of detailed knowledge of a historical incident is equivalent to challenging a theoretical framework, then that is just educational incompetence. It is the opposite of critical thinking.
Actually ID doesn't accert that those are impossible. God obviously did it, so there is some process that works. We don't know what processes God used. It is not unreasonable to believe that God may have used what we consider to be regular processes of chemistry. What ID maintains, is that biological objects did not come into being by mere chance and random processes of chemistry, but was part of an intelligent design process. Whereas, evolutionists INSIST on a completely random process, that does not require a creator or designer.
"ID, as a matter of principle, asserts that certain processes cannot be disassembled."
Here again you are wrong. ID is not against dissasembling creation to learn about it's design. ID simply objects to attributing that design entirely to random chance, because there is little evidence for that. Evolutionists assume "random chance" was the causative event not because of the evidence, but because they assume a lack of a creator. Thus their belief system is influencing their science.
Please note that we are not discussing who made the dirt, or who created the laws of nature. We are discussing how the world works now that it exists.
Not really, we are discussing how life began and whether it was by random chance or through intelligent design. We are not discussing how the world works now. Even if man dissassembles DNA to the point that Man himself can create new life forms from scratch, that will not prove the evolutionists belief that man came from random events rather than was designed. Likewise, even if man dissassembles physical processes to the point that Man himself can control the forces necessary to bring an entire universe into existence, that will not prove that our universe was happenstance rather than intelligent design.
It is a matter of implying that one should give up without a fight.
No it is a matter of stating unequivocally that one should not assume as fact that which he has extremely limited knowledge of.
Science is full of examples of such scientific arrogance and it harms the cause of science as well as Mankind. How many families had suspicions and split up because their child had the wrong eye color? According to 1970's genetics eye color was controlled by a single gene and and two people with recessive genes could not have a baby with different color eyes. Only now 30 years later, a humbler science admits that eye color is controlled by at least 4 different genes and that those four are not the complete list, there must be more factors.
We are barely starting to learn about the human genome, but evolutionists eager to defend their beliefs have already made enormous claims for DNA proving common descent. Even if we fully understood DNA, it would not prove that. Claims to that effect are simply bad science, a belief system attempting to usurp the name of science in it's defense.
"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12 " Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
Both of these require limitation by statements in the curriculum proposal (e.g. the confine of scientific knowledge).
First, the scope of the field is not limited by the curriculum guidelines for elementary and secondary schools.
Second, the scope of science changes as discoveries are made.
I don't know all that the ID proponents want--some of them appear to be kamikaze--but I'm all in favor of teaching the history of science, in science classes, both at the primary and at the secondary level.
I'm in favor of a historical presentation at, maybe a high school level. Currently, as you move up toward graduate education, the curriculum changes to only a historical and contextual presentation of experiments and thought processes. This, by the way, has nothing to do with ID.
LOL. Whatever. Ill tell my advisor first thing tommorrow that weve been doing it all wrong. Some guy named Fester on the internet has it all figured out.
So when you go about collecting your facts, tell me what happens when you start regularly noticing things like dead retroviral DNA and fused chimp chromosomes? Conclude the all powerful, all knowing designer is trying to mess with us humans? Real intelligent.
The light needs to shine bright on these cockroaches lest we want further damage done to science education.
Its people like this that turn many otherwise conservative folk to vote democrat.
All he wants to do is turn back the clock about 1,000 years or so. One pile of worthless pseudo-scientific dogma, one unwashed idiot in command of everyone's mind, book-burnings, witch-hunters scouting around for "free thinkers," it's going to be wonderful. And Ohio is leading the way.
Teaching and Propaganda The response by Vit Klemeš (Physics Today, March 2000, page 100) to a report about the Kansas State Board of Education’s decision to exclude evolution theory from its science standards has rekindled some old issues in the perennial science–religion debate in education. In particular, Klemeš poses the question of the proper relationship of science to politics and ideology. This discussion has caused me to reflect on my own role as a teacher and, in particular, to remind me of two of my former students, Doug and Jamal. Both of them had taken my introductory modern physics course during their freshman or sophomore college year.Doug was an excellent student, and demonstrated a wonderful understanding of what I was teaching. But across the top of his almost perfect final examination paper he wrote, “I still don’t believe in relativity!”
Jamal was not the type to be so direct. He came into my office a few years later (just before he was about to graduate) to say goodbye. We chatted awhile, I wished him well, and then, as he was about to leave, he turned to me and said hesitantly in his characteristically shy way: “Do you remember that stuff you taught us about how the universe originated in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago? Well, I don’t really believe all that.” I must have looked surprised because he went on. “It kind of conflicts with my religious beliefs.” He looked apprehensively at me, perhaps to see if I might be offended or angry or think less of him. But I simply smiled and let it pass.
Why was I not displeased with someone who had rejected a whole semester of my teachings on the physical origins of the universe, and instead possibly believed that the world was created by God about 6000 years ago? Why did I not leap to the defense of science against such irrational beliefs? (For the record, I am perfectly comfortable with the standard scientific models of cosmology and evolution, and am not a closet creationist.)
Every time I teach an introductory modern physics course and look at the students’ final exams, a sense of puzzlement comes over me. Not because some students have taken the elegant theories of relativity and quantum mechanics and made a total hash of them (which happens all too often, unfortunately), but because so many of them seem to actually believe the theories. The difficulties those students have are mostly procedural, in the sense that they find it difficult to apply the theories correctly in the given situations.
I used to ask myself why they believed what I taught them. For one thing, as we now know from research into physics education, everyday phenomena and experience conspire to produce students who think that any motion requires a force. Such a preconception makes even Newtonian mechanics a tough proposition to sell them. (See Teaching Physics: Figuring Out What Works, by Edward F. Redish and Richard N. Steinberg, Physics Today, January 1999, page 24.) Furthermore, the ideas of relativity and quantum mechanics are so thoroughly contrary to everyday experience that I would expect students, on first hearing these notions, to reject them out of hand.
I used to wonder whether most students were like Jamal, secretly rejecting everything I said, but acting otherwise in order to get good grades. But not many students can successfully maintain that level of dualistic thinking over a long period of time. I finally concluded that most students believe me because they trust me, they feel that I have their best interests at heart and that I would not deliberately deceive them by teaching things that I myself did not believe. They also trust the institution that awarded me a physics PhD, and the university and the physics department that hired me and allow me to teach them.
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. We who teach introductory physics have to acknowledge, if we are honest with ourselves, that our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments or evidence that support the currently accepted theories, and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. We give short shrift to alternative theories, introducing them only in order to promptly demolish them—again by appealing to undemonstrated counter-evidence. We drop the names of famous scientists and Nobel prizewinners to show that we are solidly on the side of the scientific establishment. All of this is designed to demonstrate the inevitability of the ideas we currently hold, so that if students reject what we say, they are declaring themselves to be unreasoning and illogical, unworthy of being considered as modern, thinking people.
Of course, we do all this with the best of intentions and complete sincerity. I have good reasons for employing propaganda techniques to achieve belief. I want my students to be accepted as modern people and to know what that entails. The courses are too rushed to allow a thorough airing of all views, of all evidence. In addition, it is impossible for students to personally carry out the necessary experiments, even if they were able to construct the long chains of inferential reasoning required to interpret the experimental results.
So I, like all my colleagues, teach the way I do because I have little choice. But it is brainwashing nonetheless. When the dust settles, what I am asking my students to do is to accept what I say because I, as an accredited representative of my discipline, profession, and academia, say it. All the reason, logic, and evidence that I use simply disguise the fact that the students are not yet in a position to sift and weigh the evidence and arrive at their own conclusions.
Conflicting goals of teaching But if students believe my views on science because of who I am and what I represent, what makes this better than believing others who also claim to speak in their best interests but give them contrary views, such as those of creationism? Let’s suppose I have two students, both of whom take my course and have listened carefully to what I have to say. One believes it and moves on. The other tells me she rejects it because she is unconvinced by me and cannot reconcile my teachings with her other beliefs. Which student response should I prefer?
One part of me (the part reflecting my academic training and professional instincts) tells me to prefer the former. Is that not the goal of teaching science: to pass on the hard-earned knowledge gained by our scientific predecessors to the next generation, so that they can build on it? But I am still uneasy because such “good” students have accepted what I say mainly because I said it, and are thus also more likely to unquestioningly accept the words of “experts” in other areas, whether they be in politics, the military, religion, or the media. These so-called experts will (like me) cloak their views in reason, logic, and evidence, but will in actuality be using the same propaganda techniques I use.
The other part of me remembers that I went into teaching science not just to train competent technicians, but also to produce people who will shake up the world and make it a better place. This part prefers the latter student, because her rejection of my teaching requires a willingness to challenge authority (me) and the courage to expose herself to ridicule by taking an unpopular view. Surely it is such people who are also more likely to question authority elsewhere as well, to take the side of the underdog and the powerless against a privileged and powerful establishment?
Students will forget most of the information they get in my classes. The best that I can hope for is to enable my students to think critically, to detect propaganda and reject intellectual coercion, even when I am the one doing it. What troubles me is the assumption by some scientists that it would be quite admirable if people believed what we say and rejected the views of those who disagree with us, even though most people have no real basis for preferring one view over the other. If scientists want the spirit of true inquiry to flourish, then we have to accept—and even encourage—public skepticism about what we say, too. Otherwise, we become nothing but ideologues.
So I salute you Jamal and Doug, wherever you are, and say now what I should have said to you then: “Listen carefully and courteously to what knowledgeable people have to say, and be able to use that information when necessary. Weigh the arguments for and against any issue but, ultimately, stand up for what you believe. Don’t ever feel forced to accept something just because some “expert” tells you it is true. Believe things only when they make sense to you and you are good and ready for them.”
Except that neither creationism nor current cosmology deals with infinity, and both postulate definite beginnings.
This part prefers the latter student, because her rejection of my teaching requires a willingness to challenge authority (me) and the courage to expose herself to ridicule by taking an unpopular view. Surely it is such people who are also more likely to question authority elsewhere as well, to take the side of the underdog and the powerless against a privileged and powerful establishment?When you get to know such people, Professor, you'll realize that she has simply made a more complete and far more irrational surrender to some authority figure earlier.
I mean, if all science were a conspiracy to hide the truth, there would be some unconcealable cracks in the facade. It wouldn't work as a basis for engineering, for one thing. The computer I'm typing on wouldn't work. (OK, it'll probably burn up like its predecessor some day, but it's worked for almost four years now.)
Then, some people would talk. It's hard to have a conspiracy of five people keeping secrets, much less five hundred thousand around the world.
Thus, the "surrender to authority" most students have to make in science classes as a way to get started isn't that unreasonable. Occam's Razor says that, while the current state of science isn't the last word, it was honestly arrived at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.