[js1138]

Here's an HTML version of the lesson plan, made by me from the Acrobat file. The original pdf file can be seen at the link.

I notice the formatting isn't the best, but it's what I've got.

Enjoy.

[js1138]

Ping for the Ohio lesson plan de-journalismized.

[edsheppa]

Sounds a bit advanced for tenth grade.

Also, it is off in one regard. There should be an analysis of prior critical examination wrt outcomes. Every one on the "five aspects" have been considered extensively but there is no consideration of the resulting scientific consensus and the reasoning behind it.

[raybbr]

tabs on this

[cornelis]

scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world

Does the universe exceed the limit of the natural world?

[VadeRetro]

Here's the first of the series of "Challenging" paragraphs. I wasn't having much heartburn until we got to this part.

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.

The "challenging" stuff tends to be an exercise in finding the BS. I have no idea if High School kids in Ohio will already have the grounding in science and logic to meet the challenge.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Thank you very much for posting this.

[Nebullis]

Thanks for posting this.

(The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

This is true, because when "challenging data" is not found in intelligent design propaganda materials it can be found in creationist or religious materials. More properly this statement should read:

(The intent of this benchmark mandates the teaching or testing of intelligent design and creationism.)

[Nebullis]

A lot of the material about evolution, i.e. what is science, what is a theory, how are data used to support or reject a hypothesis, etc., has to be presented as an instructional benchmark for science in general. There is something very odd about this emphasis on just one part of science. It makes an implicit statement about the validity of evolution vs. other science and is clearly intended to confuse the student. How can anyone call this education?

[Nebullis]

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.

This is straight out of the creationist handbook. There are basically two creationists "challenges" to evolution: "nobody was there to see it happen" and "we haven't repeated the event in the laboratory".

In science, the theory with the MOST supporting evidence wins. The "challenge" presented here is not a scientific challenge. A scientific challenge would consist of data which clearly supports another hypothesis. As it happens, any science with a historical aspect, such as biology or cosmology, is going to suffer from an inherent absence of data and a near impossibility for laboratory replication.

This is anti-science propaganda, pure and simple.

[greenwolf]

Explain that scientific knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to modification and limited to the natural world......

How about: Explain how Charles Darwin and his simple-minded theory got 150 million people killed in two world wars in the space of 30 years.

[Elsie]

Microevolution Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Oh?

[Mr. Silverback]

Oh my God...It reads just like a Southern Baptist sermon! Theocracy has arrived in the United States! Run in circles, throw up your hands like Nathan Lane! Mass hysteria!

[TopQuark]

What specifically do you object to?

What am I expected to enjoy?

[CobaltBlue]

Thanks, js1138. It does look rather advanced for 10th grade but otherwise very interesting. Never too early nor too late to teach critical thinking. Neither of my kids are interested in biology, so I don't know whether I'd get a helpful response if I showed it to them but I'll give it a try.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

Evolution has been debunked and is now considered by all but the most intransigent as a dead religion.

[AgThorn]