Wednesday, December 26, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

New journal to target education in evolution

by Arstechnica

Thanks to Richard Prins for the link.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/12/26/new-journal-to-target-education-in-evolution

New journal to target education in evolution
By John Timmer | Published: December 26, 2007 - 09:25AM CT

Evolutionary principles impact our understanding of everything from cancer, through drug and pesticide resistance, to managing the environment to maintain biodiversity. But the US public understands evolution poorly, and the mere presence of the topic in public science education has sparked controversy. A new journal, Evolution: Education and Outreach, has been established with the intention of improving education in the topic by getting scientists and teachers to discuss issues and lesson plans related to evolution. The journal has just released its first issue, and all the content has been made Open Access.

The brains behind Evolution: Education and Outreach are the Eldridge brothers. Two are high school students, and the third, Niles, happens to have been one of two people who produced the concept of punctuated equilibria; he's on the staff of the American Museum of Natural History.

The journal is meant to contain a mixture of lesson plans, scientific content, and personal reflections. It's an interesting concept, but some of the content seemed haphazard in this first issue. We don't normally expect articles in a scientific journal to form a coherent picture, but this one doesn't target the same audience. A better-implemented editorial vision might make future editions more than the sum of their individual parts.

Those individual parts seem hit or miss. I don't teach on the high school level, but the lesson plan on the kingdoms of life seems rather sparse and assumes a lot of preexisting knowledge in its target audience. Reports on the attempts to insert creationism in the science classrooms of England and the failure to call evolution by its name in the scientific literature have been covered well elsewhere. A personal perspective on the attitudes towards evolution of her peers could have used some further editing, but still painted an informative picture of how students come out of high school with a poor understanding of the topic, and typically avoid ever studying biology again.

Two articles, however, really stood out as excellent; both were on the philosophy of science. Ian Tattersall mixes personal experience in paleoanthropology with thoughts on Popper and Kuhn; I don't entirely agree with those thoughts, but they do a wonderful job of linking the abstract philosophy to the actual practice of science and thoughts of scientists.

But T. Ryan Gregory steals the show with an essay entitled "Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path" (and I'm not just saying that because he's said nice things about me at his blog, Genomicron). Working from the definitions of the National Academies of Science, he shows how the common understanding of terms like "law" and "theory" cause confusion about the place of evolution in the sciences, and how the observable fact of evolution is just one small part of the theory.

Overall, there's some good material here, but some of it almost feels like it's written for nonoverlapping audiences. In the longer term, I think a more careful coordination of lesson plans with the material from scientists would make for a more compelling package. Hopefully, even in its current form, the material will be useful for educators.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 54 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #103750 by dlitt on December 26, 2007 at 5:17 pm

I'm tired of hearing the "evolved from apes" argument against evolutionary theory as if they can't understand a parallel separate path of evolution from a common ancestor. To suggest that mosquitos, monkeys, and humans are equally 'evolved,' confuses and annoys them. I hope this material helps educate our youth to a better understanding of their natural history so they are less likely to become dumb adults.

Other Comments by dlitt

2. Comment #103754 by CruciFiction on December 26, 2007 at 5:21 pm

And the latest Republican presidential candidate to REJECT EVOLUTION is creationist RON PAUL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML8rbbF53ak

"I, um, I think it's a theory, theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory…. I just don't think we're at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14021.html

Other Comments by CruciFiction

3. Comment #103758 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 5:44 pm

And the latest Republican presidential candidate to REJECT EVOLUTION is creationist RON PAUL.

I would be disappointed by this if I didn't know he has pretty much 0% chance of getting the republican nomination anyway. I can't remember if he was at the debate where the "Do you believe in evolution" question was asked. If so I wonder why he wasn't counted as one of the ones who claimed to not buy into it?

I also wonder how a man of science (he's been a doctor for 40 years) could not understand what the definition of a theory is, much less the concept of what evolution is. Last I heard, doctors were required to learn a fair amount of biology.

Sounds like he may have just been politically pandering to his audience, which is an even better reason to not vote for him than if he genuinely does not accept evolution.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

4. Comment #103763 by ShavenYak on December 26, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Don_Quix,

Evolution denial is actually relatively common among medical doctors, at least compared to scientists in general. Somewhere around 20% of them believe God created humans in their present form. See this article on the Panda's Thumb for more details and analysis.

Other Comments by ShavenYak

5. Comment #103764 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Evolution denial is actually relatively common among medical doctors, at least compared to scientists in general. Somewhere around 20% of them believe God created humans in their present form.

Truly terrifying. I wonder if my health care provider has a list of which doctors on my health plan are creationists/evolutionists? Somehow I think not ;D

Other Comments by Don_Quix

6. Comment #103770 by CruciFiction on December 26, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Ron Paul was an OB/GYN. Good thing, otherwise, with the mindset of a creationist he'd probably believe in storkism too.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

7. Comment #103771 by robotaholic on December 26, 2007 at 6:31 pm

(yay it's carl sagan!) The understanding of evolution is absolutely fundamental in so many medical fields. I wish so many uneducated people knew this.

Other Comments by robotaholic

8. Comment #103772 by notsobad on December 26, 2007 at 6:34 pm

The funny part is he majored in biology!

Other Comments by notsobad

9. Comment #103775 by Robert Maynard on December 26, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Evolution denial is actually relatively common among medical doctors

It may be because training as an MD has less of an emphasis on theory than practice.
I'm fairly sure it's not even necessary to have a science degree to be a fully qualified obstetrician, as Mr. Paul is.

I suppose it's somewhat similar to the difference between theologians and pastors - the former are steeped in the ins and outs of a religion, but as a result have mostly become dulled to the ancient assertions, while the latter are showmen who haven't had to wade too deep into what they preach.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

10. Comment #103776 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Too bad Hitchens wasn't born in the US. He'd be a good write-in for president.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

11. Comment #103779 by Don_Quix on December 26, 2007 at 8:22 pm

I suppose it's somewhat similar to the difference between theologians and pastors - the former are steeped in the ins and outs of a religion, but as a result have mostly become dulled to the ancient assertions, while the latter are showmen who haven't had to wade too deep into what they preach.

This strikes me as a pretty good (and likely) analogy.

However, if you were extremely ill or injured, would you want the doctor who does everything in his/her power to save you because they genuinely think that once you are dead you are dead forever and there's no coming back so death is to be avoided at all (humane) costs ...OR... the doctor who rationalizes the loss of their patients by thinking there is a higher power in charge and a better place waiting for you once you die so death isn't all that bad?

This is not to say that both of them (if they were ethical doctors) wouldn't do everything in their power to save you. But for some reason the latter example would make me quite nervous if I was their patient. heheh.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

12. Comment #103813 by Shane McKee on December 26, 2007 at 11:56 pm

Folks, believe it. I teach medical students (I'm a cclinical geneticist), and it astonishes me how many of them are creationists. I also got excoriated in the letters columns in one of our local newspapers by a GP who thought that a council should write to local secondary schools to suggest they reach creationism as science.
There is a lot of work to be done.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

13. Comment #103815 by Acleron on December 26, 2007 at 11:58 pm

Comment #103770 by CruciFiction on December 26, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Ron Paul was an OB/GYN. Good thing, otherwise, with the mindset of a creationist he'd probably believe in storkism too.

Who says he doesn't :(

Other Comments by Acleron

14. Comment #103834 by Geoff on December 27, 2007 at 2:46 am

I wonder if he understands, for instance, why vaccines need to keep up with evolving microorganisms, or why it's important to complete a course of antibiotics.

Other Comments by Geoff

15. Comment #103836 by CJ22 on December 27, 2007 at 2:54 am

I wonder if he understands, for instance, why vaccines need to keep up with evolving microorganisms, or why it's important to complete a course of antibiotics.

He probably accepts 'micro-evolution' or some such sophistry.

Other Comments by CJ22

16. Comment #103840 by Geoff on December 27, 2007 at 3:20 am

He probably accepts 'micro-evolution' or some such sophistry.

Mmm, perhaps, I keep forgetting how they can wiggle.

OK, how about if we tried him on why we can catch some diseases from other animals, or test drugs on animals (whatever the moral issues), or even successfully transplant animal organs into humans, or that we share so much DNA...

Yeah, I know...God did it! Jesus Wept!

Other Comments by Geoff

17. Comment #103846 by Shane McKee on December 27, 2007 at 4:05 am

It's bananas. Macroevolution is just microevolution that has been going on for a bit longer. For sure, we get these "punctuated equilibria" (which are not as "punctuated" as some people like to make out), but these are just artefacts of the dynamics of evolution. It's like snow falling on a mountain - much of the time it doesn't just slide off gently - it'll fall off in avalanches. The creationist would probably therefore conclude that snow falls in discrete multi-million ton packages, rather than many many individual teensy wee snowflakes one after another.

As for adaptation, most of the gradations that we see in the fossil record are not actually adaptations per se - they are more likely to represent "drift". Why? Because evolution is *bloody fast* if there is a major selective pressure. Fast, of course, means in a geological sense. A couple of hundred generations can do great stuff if it's adaptation you're looking for.

Which means, of course, that our doctors need to know *a lot* about evolution, because a new strain of pandemic flu is hardly going to wait around until several million years has passed since 1918.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

18. Comment #103857 by al-rawandi on December 27, 2007 at 6:16 am

Ron Paul? Damn... He was my guy this year, and now he denies evolution. At least he isn't a religious nut bent on changing the Constitution to suit his needs.

I may write in Hitchens anyway.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

19. Comment #103862 by bentleyd on December 27, 2007 at 6:26 am

Here's a classic Doonesbury comic strip on the subject:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/images/1218doonesbury_lg.gif

Other Comments by bentleyd

20. Comment #103872 by clunkclickeverytrip on December 27, 2007 at 6:56 am

Great Doonesbury comic strip.
Back to the original topic, I am very pleased to see the creation of this journal. Educators need all the help they can get to provide the fundamental building blocks to children for understanding of science, and particularly evolutionary biology, in a coherent way from the earliest possible age.
Hopefully some scientific heavyweights will lend their support to ensure this journal succeeds.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

21. Comment #103873 by Russell's Teapot on December 27, 2007 at 6:58 am

I'm fairly certain that Ron Paul believes some sort of garbage about government vaccine conspiracies, or at least thinks it's a major affront to American liberty to *gasp* have mandatory vaccinations. So it wouldn't be at all surprising if his ignorant views on evolution at least partially contributed to some of the bullshit he pushes.

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

22. Comment #103875 by rnewson on December 27, 2007 at 7:13 am

"At least he isn't a religious nut bent on changing the Constitution to suit his needs"

Yes, he is;

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

From: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Other Comments by rnewson

23. Comment #103894 by Serious on December 27, 2007 at 8:53 am

On the topic: What is the most accessible short explanation of evolution for a non-scientist?

Other Comments by Serious

24. Comment #103896 by al-rawandi on December 27, 2007 at 9:06 am

rnewson,

Having a church eclipse the state in importance is in reference to personal life. He seeks a reduction in the role of government in everyday lives. That would by default enhance the role of religion. I don't really care, the less the government involves itself in my life, the better.

Although the founding fathers were by degrees less religious than many of the politicians today, they did understand the colonies were a Christian polity (with the exception of West African slaves who were often times Muslim, and later broken of their faith).

This is one statement from a politician. Look at the audience, to whom is he speaking. These people can't be trusted to keep consistent positions. No doubt, Ron Paul is the best hope for the United States (despite religious leanings). Supporting an end to foreing involvement that only serves to anger the local populations, and an end to wasteful foreign aid (Israel atop that list).

Other Comments by al-rawandi

25. Comment #103900 by robotaholic on December 27, 2007 at 9:37 am

My mum said yesterday when we were talking about the tiger attack in San Francisco on christmas day: "Wont you be glad when the paradise is here and you can play with tigers and hug them and take care of them?"- she really thinks some day in the future tigers somehow wont be an apex preditor nor eat meat(despite their teeth)-

this whole mental dissonance issue with religious people is a serious problem- it lets them somehow justify dinosaurs and humans living together or virgin births and other rediculous things that directly stand in opposition to science and the general discovery of truth about the world-

rnewson

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

be gone troll!- you are not allowed to rewrite history or lie upon it-

Thomas Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

John Adams: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!""

Thomas Jefferson: "The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

James Madison: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution"

America was founded by people trying to get away from the Church of England (and by criminals)- setting up a theocracy in the north american continent was NOT a priority

Other Comments by robotaholic

26. Comment #103901 by konquererz on December 27, 2007 at 9:39 am

al-rawandi

Our fore fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, also had no problem stating that they despised the christian religion. And I disagree that less government would by default enhance the role of religion. It would enhance the role of charity.
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance"

That does not sound like he is talking about his personal life when he is referring to a robustly christian america.

Other Comments by konquererz

27. Comment #103904 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 9:44 am

Having a church eclipse the state in importance is in reference to personal life. He seeks a reduction in the role of government in everyday lives.

Federal government only. He would let state governments pass laws that'd limit basic rights and freedom (religion in public schools, abortion ban,...).
And the constitution is not perfect. Remember, slavery was legal when it was written and many founding fathers were slave owners.

Other Comments by notsobad

28. Comment #103909 by al-rawandi on December 27, 2007 at 9:55 am

robotaholic,

Your mom actually thinks that? My deepest condolences. Also I think rnewson was saying Ron Paul was a religious nut, I had stated that I didn't think so. He was clarifying for me. He may be a troglydite, but no troll.

konquererz, notsobad,

Eyes on the prize. He wouldn't get all that through. He would however end our overseas involvement and our aid to Israel. Those two accomplishments are worth a small price (politics is comprimise). I am not sure what his position on state govt. is percisely.

Believe me I would rather have an atheist who wanted less govt. at all levels. But if you haven't noticed, voting in America is a "lesser of 12 evils, narrowed to 2 evils". All these fuckwits are 'christians'. Even Obama (although a Muslim apostate as well).

Other Comments by al-rawandi

29. Comment #103911 by robotaholic on December 27, 2007 at 9:59 am

notsobad, slavery is fine - you just have to be a willing slave and work for a few dollars per hour at Mcdonalds to know that!

Other Comments by robotaholic

30. Comment #103913 by FightingFalcon on December 27, 2007 at 10:04 am

I am truly sorry to see Ron Paul reject the "theory" of evolution. I was a strong supporter of him and donated to his campaign several times.

Looks like I'm not voting for him anymore. It's unfortunate, as I thought he was the only one who could save the Republic.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

31. Comment #103916 by sent2null on December 27, 2007 at 10:10 am

serious wrote:

On the topic: What is the most accessible short explanation of evolution for a non-scientist?

A nice (it still has quite a few errors though) introduction with a good set of references for the layman.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

Other Comments by sent2null

32. Comment #103938 by rnewson on December 27, 2007 at 11:17 am

robotaholic,

I think you misread my post. The two paragraphs were quotes from Ron Paul. I am not a troll, though your comments do apply to Ron Paul.

I edited my post to put those two paragraphs in a blockquote element.

al-rawandi: Ron Paul does not support the separation of church and state. It doesn't take a troglodyte to realize that's a bad thing.

Other Comments by rnewson

33. Comment #103972 by Divineosaur on December 27, 2007 at 11:57 am

Don Quix said:

Truly terrifying. I wonder if my health care provider has a list of which doctors on my health plan are creationists/evolutionists? Somehow I think not ;D

This might better read "witch doctors." :D

Other Comments by Divineosaur

34. Comment #103973 by al-rawandi on December 27, 2007 at 12:04 pm

rnewson,

It is ambiguous about Ron Paul. He has made some comments that are suspicious, but every candidate does. He is a Baptist, all the candidates are christian.

I support him because he supports and overhaul of foreign policy, an end to aid to Israel, Egypt and other pariah states. He supports an end to wasteful spending and a large tax cut for all Americans. It may have been wishful thinking in assuming he was also for the seperation (total seperation, not selective).

He simply believes it is the state's right to determine whether prayer in school is acceptable. I am unsure whether or not that is constitutional.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

35. Comment #103977 by Glen Davidson on December 27, 2007 at 12:16 pm

"I, um, I think it's a theory, theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory…. I just don't think we're at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side."

Aside from the issue of "absolute proof," which is a matter for religion and not science, what is this "other side" supposed to be? ID? Plato's theory of forms? Ovid's Metamorphoses?

If there actually were another potential theory I think that would be exciting, since it is true that many questions about evolution remain unanswered. That's why the dog ID is even worse than useless, it's insulting for claiming to have answers when it can't even provide potential explanations where it criticizes "Darwinian explanations".

Paul's greatest potential is for providing a contrary voice for ideas that are worthy of consideration. That role will be seriously compromised if he's going to play the anti-science know-nothing, rather than the intelligent critic.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

36. Comment #103984 by annabanana on December 27, 2007 at 12:45 pm

ok, where to start

First, this issue is probably one that most easily invokes emotion for me, for some reason. I'm assuming it has something to do with me having a degree in biology, but at any rate, I'm extremely glad to see that there's a journal now, however haphazard the first issue may have been. Speaking of haphazard, this article might fit that definition.

Secondly, Serious, I don't suggest getting some sort of watered-down, simplified version of evolution as that's why people are confused in the first place. My zoology professor taught evolution the entire semester, and I still don't feel like I know everything. I think it would be the equivalent of trying to learn some over-simplified version of the theory of relativity; it really just wouldn't do much good. I'll go home and retrieve the name of the wonderful text we had if you're interested.

Thirdly, Ron Paul would have the states run it however they like and he thinks that's what the constitution intended. People have tried to convince me that it doesn't matter what his personal views are and that if the states wanted to be particularly religiously oriented, that was their right, but not to worry because it will never happen. However, I refuse to vote for someone who wouldn't have a problem with religion taking over or Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Dr. Paul also said that being and ob/GYN, he had never known of a case where a woman needed an abortion to save her life (because he personally doesn't believe in abortion). Apparently, he hasn't been doing a good job of keeping up with conditions that would be cause for abortion, because there are plenty...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrombotic_thrombocytopenic_purpura

Other Comments by annabanana

37. Comment #104046 by Duff on December 27, 2007 at 5:21 pm

robotaholic,
Hang in there, Sir. Your head is certainly in the right place.

Al Rawandi,
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you think the muslim version of ridiculousness is a little less ridiculous than the christian version of ridiculousness. They are equally ridiculous, my friend. And don't blame the silly Israelis for the sorry state of the muslim world. The muslims got themselves into their sorry state long before 1945.

Other Comments by Duff

38. Comment #104078 by eric.malitz on December 27, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Too bad Niles is a major supporter of the notion that you can have evolution and religion side by side. This is absurd.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

39. Comment #104106 by dlitt on December 27, 2007 at 10:47 pm

36. Comment #103984 by annabanana on December 27, 2007 at 12:45 pm

..., I don't suggest getting some sort of watered-down, simplified version of evolution as that's why people are confused in the first place. My zoology professor taught evolution the entire semester, and I still don't feel like I know everything.

There was a eureka moment for me when I understood the remarkable simplicity of the process of evolution by natural selection and how, over a vast timeframe, such complexity and diversity must evolve. The details, although personally rewarding, are not necessary for comprehension.

Other Comments by dlitt

40. Comment #104109 by dlitt on December 27, 2007 at 11:25 pm

There was a eureka moment for me when I understood the remarkable simplicity of the process of evolution by natural selection...

Although I have always believed evolution to be correct, it was Richard Dawkins', "The Blind Watchmaker," that cinched it for me.

Thank you.

Other Comments by dlitt

41. Comment #104116 by righton on December 27, 2007 at 11:51 pm

I also think to really understand evolution you must learn it in depth. It is the theory of how we got here and that cannot be understood in a short discussion, as it shouldnt be. I think its all about educating people about evolution. If the average person took a class and had their questions answered I think they would accept it, indefinitely. I think getting bits and pieces tends to make them disbelieve.

Other Comments by righton

42. Comment #104118 by righton on December 27, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Oops, indefinitely should be unquestionably

Other Comments by righton

43. Comment #104123 by dlitt on December 28, 2007 at 12:15 am

Certainly having an indepth understanding of evolution is rewarding, as I have said - but there is a level of knowledge that will provide the sudden insight of understanding. It didn't require a whole lot of details in my case. I do know more of the details now than when I had my 'enlightenment.'

Other Comments by dlitt

44. Comment #104124 by dlitt on December 28, 2007 at 12:20 am

I give up on Quantum Theory, though. :-)

Other Comments by dlitt

45. Comment #104213 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 5:50 am

dlitt, I suppose that a basic understanding of evolution can provide some epiphanies and is somewhat satisfactory, but I just remember going through all of the kingdoms and clades in my zoology class and literally learning about how we got to where we are now (of course not the exact pathways). Learning all that really solidified evolution for me. I actually wouldn't mind continuing my education in evolutionary biology. Anyone in here want a bright, young, Ph.D. student? RD, maybe (I can only dream!)?

Other Comments by annabanana

46. Comment #104268 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 8:47 am

I was thinking also, that a good thing to learn about that might not be too complicated that helped me to learn about evolution is the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. It's about population genetics specifically, but it particularly bolsters one's understanding of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-weinberg_equilibrium

Other Comments by annabanana

47. Comment #104412 by refinedartist on December 28, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Nothing in biology makes sense

Other Comments by refinedartist

48. Comment #104415 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 1:12 pm

I hope you're being sarcastic

Other Comments by annabanana

49. Comment #104445 by refinedartist on December 28, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I was quoting Dobzhansky

Other Comments by refinedartist

50. Comment #104449 by annabanana on December 28, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Oh, I see...maybe you could use an ellipsis next time? ;)

Other Comments by annabanana