On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Deb Fuller wrote:
> I think we can all agree that organisms change over time and adapt to
their environment, aka - evolve. This is a proven scientific FACT and can
easily be replicated with a number of experiments. I don't think anyone
is disputing that part of the evolution theory.

That's undeniably true, but unfortunately, some people *do* dispute, often
vocally, that evolution occurs *at all*, and it often seems like those
folks aren't really well versed about what evolution *is* or how it works.

> But with all the BASIC science out there that we could teach and should
teach, I think hitting home the point that we are or are not decended
from protoplasmic globules of DNA or Austrilopithicus africanus is a bit
useless. Face it, on both sides of the argument there are holes, big
truck-sized holes that probably will never be proven no matter how much
science is involved.

Ideas about the initial origins of life are a different subject than
"evolution" or even "human evolution".  I'm not sure exactly what
"truck-sized holes" you are referring to for human evolution, but there is
no *scientific* reason to believe that humans arose in a way fundamentally
different than the way other primate species arose.  In fact, there is a
lot of evidence (DNA, anatomical evidence, fossil evidence...) to suggest
that our species arose via the same mechanisms.  This is not to suggest
that each species doesn't have a unique 'story' if you will, in the grand
history of life.

> I also think that if you present one side of the arguement as fact or
fiction, you automatically alientate the other faction. This in turn will
immediately shut their minds to any other science you try and teach them.
> Thus, I think we need to ask ourselves it is more important to teach
people about science in general or specific theories? You can teach
evolution without going into the origins of man or life in general.

I'm not suggesting that anyone use the "fact vs. fiction" route.  I'm
simply saying that creation stories -- whether Biblical or non- -- are
*not science* and don't belong in the public school science classroom. As
for teaching 'specific theories' about human evolution, I don't think it's
inherently necessary to go into what *paths* human evolution is currently
thought to have taken (e.g., did Neanderthals interbreed with our direct
ancestors, etc.) in a high school biology class (although I *do* think the
subject is interesting!).  However, if one is presenting a history of
life, either in a biology or a geology class, are you suggesting that
teachers should just *skip* the origination of humans altogether? Should
they end their lesson plans with, say, the Eocene and the origination of
whales?  I think that this is not an acceptable ommission.  If a science
teacher has done a good job teaching her or his students what science
actually *is*, it should be clear that whatever evolution s/he discusses
has evidence in the *scientific* realm.

Thanks,
Suzanne

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).