[Taxacom] Dogs playing Poker
Beach, James H
beach at ku.edu
Sat Feb 5 16:38:41 CST 2011
I am actually looking for a black velvet painting of Dogs playing poker or billiards for our accountant's office which has hideously red and green carnival-esque walls. If you know where I can find one, please email me OFF LIST!
But could I ask that we agree not to digress to topics like the U.S. football Superbowl, alcohol consumption and mad materialism?
Thanks!
The List Superintendant
-----------------------------------
James H. Beach
Biodiversity Institute
University of Kansas
1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA
Office: 785-864-4645
No engagement = No commitment
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 12:00 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Taxacom Digest, Vol 59, Issue 5
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
taxacom-request at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Taxacom digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Evolution Education (John Grehan)
2. animals in Superbowl commercials (Kenneth Kinman)
3. Re: Fwd: evolution education (Don.Colless at csiro.au)
4. Re: Evolution Education (Don.Colless at csiro.au)
5. Re: animals in Superbowl commercials (Robin Leech)
6. Re: Fwd: evolution education (Frederick W. Schueler)
7. Re: Evolution Education (Dick Jensen)
8. Re: Evolution Education (John Grehan)
9. Re: Evolution Education (John Grehan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 22:56:44 -0500
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
To: <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
<26DA12164B238549B6D89A2F2A8EE79901AACBF6 at bmsmail.sciencebuff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I can sympathize with the comments about the quality of (US) education in general (I recall that there was a book called 'Bread and Circuses'
or something like that, about university education), and perhaps this makes more of my point about not worrying about teaching evolution. Its not a matter of 'surrender' as it is with not bothering with an unproductive endeavor that is focused more on having future members of society parrot this or that 'proof' of evolution rather than having any appreciation of the science of evolution. Just reiterating the same tired old arguments will not cut it. After all, Darwin had the same kind of information on fossils, patterns of inheritance, homologies between organisms that we do now, but it was not these things that convinced him to take evolution seriously and so why suppose it necessarily will for anyone now?
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of R J Ferry
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:39 AM
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
Fri-04Feb11/1038 local
Like Mark, I tend to lurk much and post little. However, recent
opinion(s) about the possible advisability of leaving the teaching of evolution out of the primary and secondary school systems strikes me that it would be a giant step backward! I am both a retired military and a retired public school teacher with some college teaching as well.
Consider this analogy: it's the easiest thing in the world to stop a war at any time, all one side has to do is surrender! That would not only delight rabid fundamentalists of all stripes, but would inspire them to continue and expand their personal jihad aggressions against science in general and scientist in particular! I taught biology (and other
science) for years, and I think many (perhaps even /most/) primary and secondary teachers tend to "miss the boat" as they approach "teaching evolution."
Religion, indeed /all/ religions begin with "who did it" and soon progress to what your conduct should be. Science is _not_ out to answer the "whodunit" question! Science is trying (hopefully with the best and most dispassionate logic we can muster) to tell _how it was done_.
There's a giant-step gap between "whodunit" and "how it was done!" As we teach natural history, the devout can point to the magnificence of The Creator and the job He/She/They have done /and are continuing to do/.
The skeptic can continue to question and study! Evolution is what's happened and what's continuing to happen,...don't "teach evolution,"
just teach the facts as best we've been able to reason them out.
Mark and I are, I'm sure, in wholehearted agreement that science teaching in the primary grades is practically non-existent, and at the secondary level is not much different! However, there is a lot of mis-teaching due to poor educational background of the ones doing the teaching! The curriculum tends to be whatever Holt Rinehart and Somebody sells to the state for its school systems. It may have changed recently, but in the not distant past an elementary teacher in Texas was "certified" to teach science with no more than ten semester hours of undergrad science credits. Remember something: "certification" is not a pedigree; it's like a dog license that "certifies" an individual to run the educational streets!
What could we use? What we could use is (as John Foster Dulles put it about US foreign policy years ago) and "agonizing reappraisal" of /what and how/ we teach, and the legislative teeth to put it in operation!
More and more, I advocate getting rid of "teacher's colleges" because they're little more than an educational union group governing being "certified" to be a teacher,...a principal,...a superintendent,...counselor,...on and on! Picture the M.D. who decides to take a secondary school job teaching chemistry,...because he doesn't have the required education courses, he's hired at 85% of the B.S.
degree salary until he makes up his "educational deficiencies." As yourselves why! Ask your state legislatures: they have the power to run the school systems.
I could go on and on, but another version of the short story is simply
this: instead of ranting "outside the door," how many of us are willing to lay aside our bean counting and philosophizing for a few days periodically and /go into the public school system /and /try to help/ the local science teacher who's in the blackboard jungle and is already overburdened with paperwork and would really welcome the "specialist"
help in whatever your field is? ...and, by the way, do it without pay; do it to help a teacher in need!
The years I taught were some of the happiest in my several decades of this life. The kids were magnificent,...the administrations generally wanted to concentrate on football, bands, and other forms of public entertainment because it brought in "local funds." University teacher/researchers become almost slaves to the "what's the funding"
game,...of which the institution takes a big bite "for the use of their facilities" which usually means building another building and naming it after themselves. Meanwhile, what comes to mind when you hear a university's name? Yep! Football. That event where they make the students move their cars out of the state-owned parking spot they're paying rent to the university for,...so the university can rent it for the football fans and pocket the money. Talk about your detailed scams,...By the way, who makes the big bucks at the university level,...the scientist or the football coach? Where's our local and national emphasis? It's that way all over the US. We educate to play! In India, China, Mexico (just to note a few), they educate to work. We used to say, "Goodbye John, work hard!" Now it's more common to say, "Goodbye John, take it easy." Notice the difference in a national attitude?
I've soap-boxed too long. It's time I took Will Rogers advice: "Never pass up a good chance to shut up!" I'll close and await the blasts of the return flame war.
Bob Ferry, PhD
Victoria, Texas,... where currently it's freezing cold,besides, I've orchids to care for and a library of books to dig into.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 22:00:45 -0600
From: kennethkinman at webtv.net (Kenneth Kinman)
Subject: [Taxacom] animals in Superbowl commercials
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID: <12905-4D4CCB6D-5896 at storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Dear All,
Superbowl Sunday is almost upon us, and this year those actually there (in person) will have to brave much colder temperatures than they are used to. But I suppose many of them will actually believe that their alcohol consumption will somehow protect them from the cold. And many of them probably actually buy the arguments that such aberrantly cold weather is evidence AGAINST global warming (as though such weather
actually reflects global temperature worldwide and year-long). But at
least the colder temperature will hopefully help them temporarily to burn off some of those calories from the junk food that they will be consuming (although it will no doubt do nothing to prevent long-term health problems from excessive salt intact and questionable nutritional
value).
But the really interesting thing about the Superbowl is the astronomical amount of money spent by advertisers producing commericals (often counting on humor that has sadly become, for the most part, just the same old stuff year after year after year). Note that most of the products advertized are beer, soda drinks, and snack foods of questionable nutritional value. And it is truly amazing how many animals appear in such commercials. As if the advertizers (and their
consumers) somehow actually care about wildlife, as opposed to their obvious goal of selling questionable nutrition to humans (most of whom have little, if any exposure, to wildlife). Their consumers probably run the gamut from those who like cheap art ("dogs" playing poker) to high priced "abstract" art that can fetch millions of dollars (even art produced by elephants splashing paint at random with their trunks or even dogs doing the same with their tails or paws). A lot of "abstract"
art (by either animals or humans) may actually end up being as valuable
as diseased tulip bulbs became in the Netherlands a few centuries ago.
Anyway, the present big winners will be advertizers and corporations selling products of questionable nutrition. Apparently such advertizing actually works on millions of susceptible consumers (who actually think the results of sports games are more important than the long term health of themselves, much less the health or survival of Planet Earth). They prefer to party every weekend (or even fiddle while Rome burns, if you will). Their interests are often even more short-term than the advertizers who tend to shape their "wants" (as opposed to actual needs). No wonder western society (and the U.S. in
particular) has increasing numbers of overweight (even morbidly obese) adults and children, They increasingly tend to only watch sports and commericals from their couches (whether by television or computer). And even those who are active (and participate in sports) too often negate that advantage with poor choices in what they consume (as if exercise will negate the effects of consuming food with lots of cheap fat, salt,
and calories, but with far less nutrition),
-------Ken
P.S. For those watching Superbowl commericals, notice that the emphasis is on either superficial humor or superficial taste of the products being advertized. Not likely to see the words nutrition or health used, because they could probably be sued for false advertizing.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:13:36 +1100
From: <Don.Colless at csiro.au>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: evolution education
To: <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:
<4929677685F1E6458DDF5A3445976A8A236EA24F9A at exvic-mbx05.nexus.csiro.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
For the record, I first heard of evolution in 2nd. year at University (but that was 1940!). I was wide open to ideas, and I wonder what might have happened if a lecturer as persuasive as Wally Waterhouse had taught Creation!
Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: 05 February 2011 00:18
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: evolution education
Here again is that troubling emphasis on 'fact'. To me it does not matter whether evolution is a fact or not, but rather what is important is the scientific methodology. What is the methodology of evolution? In all other sciences the emphasis is on methods of analysis, not facts themselves. It does not matter to a physicist as to whether an 'atom' really exists or not as a fact, but how the model of an atom is an effective (e.g. predictive) methodological tool. At least that is my opinion even if philosophically naive.
I think botany provides many excellent illustrations of evolution - particularly in the combinations of morphologies that lead to the evolution of the angiosperm leaf and flower (or flowers growing out of leaves etc). I sometimes take students through the 2/5 symmetry as an example of something they can all 'see' after the analysis, but none could see by direct observation alone. Is the 2/5 superposition a fact or a theory? It does not seem to matter any more than the method of analysis that leads to that recognition.
I sometimes wonder if evolution would be better served left out of the pre-university education system altogether. I never had anything explicit about evolution until my last year of high school when I specialized in biology. That did not hurt me (although some might sarcastically say that is how I came to be so misguided as to take panbiogeography seriously!).
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of m.egger at comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:36 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Fwd: evolution education
Well, I'm a secondary Biology teacher in an admittedly supportive region (Seattle), but I teach an extensive evolution unit and rarely have push-back from parents or students (much less school boards.) I'm up front about what I teach from the start, saying that the vast majority of scientists regard evolution as a fact, debated 150 years ago but now proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that, while there will be many viewpoints in the class, I expect each of them to at least have a clear understanding of the present state of our knowledge of how it works and the evidence scientists in many fields have documented that make evolution the dominant organizing principle in the biological sciences. I also teach evolution in the center of my curriculum, after general cell chemistry and morphology and immediately after the genetics unit, so that the nature of evolution as essentially a genetic process is apparent. I think a significant problem in teaching evolution at my level relate s to the whole red state/blue state schism in our country, so that it's very politicized in places like Oklahoma, but much less so in other regions less prone to fundamentalist zealotry. Also rural vs. urban. Another problem is inadequate teacher training and in some districts inappropriate teacher selection, with the hiring of people as teachers who are clearly unqualified for and even hostile to the teaching of evolution. In those cases, I'd actually be happy if they skipped evolution completely! I have a great advantage in teaching in a supportive region and in being a botanist myself, so that I can include examples of evolutionary concepts and process directly from my own studies.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2011 6:31:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] evolution education
So what, in your view, are the principles of evolution and what is so hard about them to teach and what is so difficult about the concept compared to other science concepts?
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: fautin at ku.edu [mailto:fautin at ku.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:27 AM
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] evolution education
Of course it is -- we all do. The puzzlement to us -- at least speaking
for those with whom I have discussed this extensively -- is those who love nature yet deny evolution.
Daphne G. Fautin
Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Curator, Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center Haworth Hall University of Kansas
1200 Sunnyside Avenue
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7534 USA
telephone 1-785-864-3062
fax 1-785-864-5321
evo user name fautin
website www.nhm.ku.edu/~inverts
direct to database of hexacorals, including sea anemones
newest version released 22 December 2010
***http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/Hexacoral/Anemone2***
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, John Grehan wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of fautin at ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] evolution education
>
> "And a final reason teachers skipped (and still skip) that last
> chapter and do not put everything in an evolutionary context is that
> they themselves are uncertain about the principles of evolution (as I
> like
to
>
> say, it's not rocket science -- it's harder!!;"
>
> It is?
>
>
> "evolution is a difficult
> concept to understand at a level that allows one to teach it
> effectively),"
>
> Really?
>
> "having had a deficient scientific education, which they blithely pass
> on.
> It is certainly possible to love nature and deny evolution."
>
> And it's also possible to love nature and accept evolution.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here _______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 15:28:26 +1100
From: <Don.Colless at csiro.au>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
To: <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:
<4929677685F1E6458DDF5A3445976A8A236EA24F9C at exvic-mbx05.nexus.csiro.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Is it better to have a superficially informed acceptor of evolution or creation-bait?
Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: 05 February 2011 14:56
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
I can sympathize with the comments about the quality of (US) education in general (I recall that there was a book called 'Bread and Circuses'
or something like that, about university education), and perhaps this makes more of my point about not worrying about teaching evolution. Its not a matter of 'surrender' as it is with not bothering with an unproductive endeavor that is focused more on having future members of society parrot this or that 'proof' of evolution rather than having any appreciation of the science of evolution. Just reiterating the same tired old arguments will not cut it. After all, Darwin had the same kind of information on fossils, patterns of inheritance, homologies between organisms that we do now, but it was not these things that convinced him to take evolution seriously and so why suppose it necessarily will for anyone now?
John Grehan
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:53:25 -0700
From: "Robin Leech" <releech at telus.net>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] animals in Superbowl commercials
To: "Kenneth Kinman" <kennethkinman at webtv.net>,
<taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <C0DF1C4DA9064D2C8BFB47CD64984BE6 at Leech>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Yeah, I hear it will be about 10-12 degrees F.
That's cooler than when we have our Grey Cup in Canada.
Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Kinman" <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 9:00 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] animals in Superbowl commercials
> Dear All,
> Superbowl Sunday is almost upon us, and this year those actually
> there (in person) will have to brave much colder temperatures than they
> are used to. But I suppose many of them will actually believe that
> their alcohol consumption will somehow protect them from the cold. And
> many of them probably actually buy the arguments that such aberrantly
> cold weather is evidence AGAINST global warming (as though such weather
> actually reflects global temperature worldwide and year-long). But at
> least the colder temperature will hopefully help them temporarily to
> burn off some of those calories from the junk food that they will be
> consuming (although it will no doubt do nothing to prevent long-term
> health problems from excessive salt intact and questionable nutritional
> value).
> But the really interesting thing about the Superbowl is the
> astronomical amount of money spent by advertisers producing commericals
> (often counting on humor that has sadly become, for the most part, just
> the same old stuff year after year after year). Note that most of the
> products advertized are beer, soda drinks, and snack foods of
> questionable nutritional value. And it is truly amazing how many
> animals appear in such commercials. As if the advertizers (and their
> consumers) somehow actually care about wildlife, as opposed to their
> obvious goal of selling questionable nutrition to humans (most of whom
> have little, if any exposure, to wildlife). Their consumers probably
> run the gamut from those who like cheap art ("dogs" playing poker) to
> high priced "abstract" art that can fetch millions of dollars (even art
> produced by elephants splashing paint at random with their trunks or
> even dogs doing the same with their tails or paws). A lot of "abstract"
> art (by either animals or humans) may actually end up being as valuable
> as diseased tulip bulbs became in the Netherlands a few centuries ago.
> Anyway, the present big winners will be advertizers and
> corporations selling products of questionable nutrition. Apparently
> such advertizing actually works on millions of susceptible consumers
> (who actually think the results of sports games are more important than
> the long term health of themselves, much less the health or survival of
> Planet Earth). They prefer to party every weekend (or even fiddle while
> Rome burns, if you will). Their interests are often even more
> short-term than the advertizers who tend to shape their "wants" (as
> opposed to actual needs). No wonder western society (and the U.S. in
> particular) has increasing numbers of overweight (even morbidly obese)
> adults and children, They increasingly tend to only watch sports and
> commericals from their couches (whether by television or computer). And
> even those who are active (and participate in sports) too often negate
> that advantage with poor choices in what they consume (as if exercise
> will negate the effects of consuming food with lots of cheap fat, salt,
> and calories, but with far less nutrition),
> -------Ken
> P.S. For those watching Superbowl commericals, notice that the emphasis
> is on either superficial humor or superficial taste of the products
> being advertized. Not likely to see the words nutrition or health used,
> because they could probably be sued for false advertizing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 01:30:36 -0500
From: "Frederick W. Schueler" <bckcdb at istar.ca>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: evolution education
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Cc: Aleta Karstad <karstad at pinicola.ca>
Message-ID: <4D4CEE8C.9050006 at istar.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 2/4/2011 11:13 PM, Don.Colless at csiro.au wrote:
> For the record, I first heard of evolution in 2nd. year at University (but that was 1940!). I was wide open to ideas, and I wonder what might have happened if a lecturer as persuasive as Wally Waterhouse had taught Creation!
* I remember my father (soon to become a clergyperson) explaining
"descent with modification by natural selection" to me in the parkinglot
of a Long Island Sound beach in about 15 minutes when I was about 10-12
years old.
This was Darwin's sledgehammer argument that "if there is heritable
variation, then it must affect fitness, and therefore must produce
evolutionary change," and I wonder if reflecting on the simplicity of
this argument doesn't suggest a strategy for teaching evolution, in
parallel with the stories of progress in stories of astronomical
physics, which are less emotionally fraught for those who incline
towards "don't believe in evolution."
Linnaeus' recognition of the existence of "natural groups" can be
considered to parallel Copernicus' recognition of the heliocentric solar
system, while Darwin's application of selection from the artificial to
the natural realm is comparable to Newton's assimilation of terrestrial
and astronomical graviation, and the stochastic character of the
population genetics of the "New Synthesis" is analogous to that of
quantum mechanics, while the spatial regularities of allopatric
speciation and geographic variation corresponds to relativity.
These parallels leave out post-1940 advances in both fields, but it
seems to me that much "evolution education" material, that I've seen, is
structured somewhat like a mud pie, and this might be a useful way to
bring out the historical and intellectual structure of the stories for
those who already have assimilated the physics stories.
fred schueler
------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
Bishops Mills Natural History Centre - http://pinicola.ca/bmnhc.htm
now in the field on the Thirty Years Later Expedition -
http://fragileinheritance.org/projects/thirty/thirtyintro.htm
Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
(613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 08:45:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Dick Jensen <rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
To: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Cc: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:
<1796345190.133302.1296913540735.JavaMail.root at zimbra.saintmarys.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I am surprised to learn that "Darwin had the same kind of information on fossils.....that we do now" Am I wrong, or haven't we learned a great deal in the past 150 years?
Dick J
----- Original Message -----
From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:56:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
I can sympathize with the comments about the quality of (US) education
in general (I recall that there was a book called 'Bread and Circuses'
or something like that, about university education), and perhaps this
makes more of my point about not worrying about teaching evolution. Its
not a matter of 'surrender' as it is with not bothering with an
unproductive endeavor that is focused more on having future members of
society parrot this or that 'proof' of evolution rather than having any
appreciation of the science of evolution. Just reiterating the same
tired old arguments will not cut it. After all, Darwin had the same kind
of information on fossils, patterns of inheritance, homologies between
organisms that we do now, but it was not these things that convinced him
to take evolution seriously and so why suppose it necessarily will for
anyone now?
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of R J Ferry
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:39 AM
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
Fri-04Feb11/1038 local
Like Mark, I tend to lurk much and post little. However, recent
opinion(s) about the possible advisability of leaving the teaching of
evolution out of the primary and secondary school systems strikes me
that it would be a giant step backward! I am both a retired military and
a retired public school teacher with some college teaching as well.
Consider this analogy: it's the easiest thing in the world to stop a war
at any time, all one side has to do is surrender! That would not only
delight rabid fundamentalists of all stripes, but would inspire them to
continue and expand their personal jihad aggressions against science in
general and scientist in particular! I taught biology (and other
science) for years, and I think many (perhaps even /most/) primary and
secondary teachers tend to "miss the boat" as they approach "teaching
evolution."
Religion, indeed /all/ religions begin with "who did it" and soon
progress to what your conduct should be. Science is _not_ out to answer
the "whodunit" question! Science is trying (hopefully with the best and
most dispassionate logic we can muster) to tell _how it was done_.
There's a giant-step gap between "whodunit" and "how it was done!" As we
teach natural history, the devout can point to the magnificence of The
Creator and the job He/She/They have done /and are continuing to do/.
The skeptic can continue to question and study! Evolution is what's
happened and what's continuing to happen,...don't "teach evolution,"
just teach the facts as best we've been able to reason them out.
Mark and I are, I'm sure, in wholehearted agreement that science
teaching in the primary grades is practically non-existent, and at the
secondary level is not much different! However, there is a lot of
mis-teaching due to poor educational background of the ones doing the
teaching! The curriculum tends to be whatever Holt Rinehart and Somebody
sells to the state for its school systems. It may have changed recently,
but in the not distant past an elementary teacher in Texas was
"certified" to teach science with no more than ten semester hours of
undergrad science credits. Remember something: "certification" is not a
pedigree; it's like a dog license that "certifies" an individual to run
the educational streets!
What could we use? What we could use is (as John Foster Dulles put it
about US foreign policy years ago) and "agonizing reappraisal" of /what
and how/ we teach, and the legislative teeth to put it in operation!
More and more, I advocate getting rid of "teacher's colleges" because
they're little more than an educational union group governing being
"certified" to be a teacher,...a principal,...a
superintendent,...counselor,...on and on! Picture the M.D. who decides
to take a secondary school job teaching chemistry,...because he doesn't
have the required education courses, he's hired at 85% of the B.S.
degree salary until he makes up his "educational deficiencies." As
yourselves why! Ask your state legislatures: they have the power to run
the school systems.
I could go on and on, but another version of the short story is simply
this: instead of ranting "outside the door," how many of us are willing
to lay aside our bean counting and philosophizing for a few days
periodically and /go into the public school system /and /try to help/
the local science teacher who's in the blackboard jungle and is already
overburdened with paperwork and would really welcome the "specialist"
help in whatever your field is? ...and, by the way, do it without pay;
do it to help a teacher in need!
The years I taught were some of the happiest in my several decades of
this life. The kids were magnificent,...the administrations generally
wanted to concentrate on football, bands, and other forms of public
entertainment because it brought in "local funds." University
teacher/researchers become almost slaves to the "what's the funding"
game,...of which the institution takes a big bite "for the use of their
facilities" which usually means building another building and naming it
after themselves. Meanwhile, what comes to mind when you hear a
university's name? Yep! Football. That event where they make the
students move their cars out of the state-owned parking spot they're
paying rent to the university for,...so the university can rent it for
the football fans and pocket the money. Talk about your detailed
scams,...By the way, who makes the big bucks at the university
level,...the scientist or the football coach? Where's our local and
national emphasis? It's that way all over the US. We educate to play! In
India, China, Mexico (just to note a few), they educate to work. We used
to say, "Goodbye John, work hard!" Now it's more common to say, "Goodbye
John, take it easy." Notice the difference in a national attitude?
I've soap-boxed too long. It's time I took Will Rogers advice: "Never
pass up a good chance to shut up!" I'll close and await the blasts of
the return flame war.
Bob Ferry, PhD
Victoria, Texas,... where currently it's freezing cold,besides, I've
orchids to care for and a library of books to dig into.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:20:03 -0500
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
To: <Don.Colless at csiro.au>
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Message-ID:
<26DA12164B238549B6D89A2F2A8EE79901AACBF8 at bmsmail.sciencebuff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Its best to have critical thinkers (whatever that may mean) and let
people make their choices. To some, my choice for panbiogeography or the
orangutan theory of human origin is as misguided as a choice for
creationism. So does it matter?
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: Don.Colless at csiro.au [mailto:Don.Colless at csiro.au]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:28 PM
To: John Grehan
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
Is it better to have a superficially informed acceptor of evolution or
creation-bait?
Donald H. Colless
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences
GPO Box 1700
Canberra 2601
don.colless at csiro.au
tuz li munz est miens envirun
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
[jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
Sent: 05 February 2011 14:56
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
I can sympathize with the comments about the quality of (US) education
in general (I recall that there was a book called 'Bread and Circuses'
or something like that, about university education), and perhaps this
makes more of my point about not worrying about teaching evolution. Its
not a matter of 'surrender' as it is with not bothering with an
unproductive endeavor that is focused more on having future members of
society parrot this or that 'proof' of evolution rather than having any
appreciation of the science of evolution. Just reiterating the same
tired old arguments will not cut it. After all, Darwin had the same kind
of information on fossils, patterns of inheritance, homologies between
organisms that we do now, but it was not these things that convinced him
to take evolution seriously and so why suppose it necessarily will for
anyone now?
John Grehan
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 11:21:33 -0500
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
To: <Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Message-ID:
<26DA12164B238549B6D89A2F2A8EE79901AACBF9 at bmsmail.sciencebuff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Not the same fossils or extent of fossil finds of course, but there were
fossils and they were recognized as representing formerly living
creatures.
John Grehan
________________________________
From: Dick Jensen [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 8:46 AM
To: John Grehan
Cc: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
I am surprised to learn that "Darwin had the same kind of information on
fossils.....that we do now" Am I wrong, or haven't we learned a great
deal in the past 150 years?
Dick J
----- Original Message -----
From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:56:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
I can sympathize with the comments about the quality of (US) education
in general (I recall that there was a book called 'Bread and Circuses'
or something like that, about university education), and perhaps this
makes more of my point about not worrying about teaching evolution. Its
not a matter of 'surrender' as it is with not bothering with an
unproductive endeavor that is focused more on having future members of
society parrot this or that 'proof' of evolution rather than having any
appreciation of the science of evolution. Just reiterating the same
tired old arguments will not cut it. After all, Darwin had the same kind
of information on fossils, patterns of inheritance, homologies between
organisms that we do now, but it was not these things that convinced him
to take evolution seriously and so why suppose it necessarily will for
anyone now?
John Grehan
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of R J Ferry
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:39 AM
To: Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: [Taxacom] Evolution Education
Fri-04Feb11/1038 local
Like Mark, I tend to lurk much and post little. However, recent
opinion(s) about the possible advisability of leaving the teaching of
evolution out of the primary and secondary school systems strikes me
that it would be a giant step backward! I am both a retired military and
a retired public school teacher with some college teaching as well.
Consider this analogy: it's the easiest thing in the world to stop a war
at any time, all one side has to do is surrender! That would not only
delight rabid fundamentalists of all stripes, but would inspire them to
continue and expand their personal jihad aggressions against science in
general and scientist in particular! I taught biology (and other
science) for years, and I think many (perhaps even /most/) primary and
secondary teachers tend to "miss the boat" as they approach "teaching
evolution."
Religion, indeed /all/ religions begin with "who did it" and soon
progress to what your conduct should be. Science is _not_ out to answer
the "whodunit" question! Science is trying (hopefully with the best and
most dispassionate logic we can muster) to tell _how it was done_.
There's a giant-step gap between "whodunit" and "how it was done!" As we
teach natural history, the devout can point to the magnificence of The
Creator and the job He/She/They have done /and are continuing to do/.
The skeptic can continue to question and study! Evolution is what's
happened and what's continuing to happen,...don't "teach evolution,"
just teach the facts as best we've been able to reason them out.
Mark and I are, I'm sure, in wholehearted agreement that science
teaching in the primary grades is practically non-existent, and at the
secondary level is not much different! However, there is a lot of
mis-teaching due to poor educational background of the ones doing the
teaching! The curriculum tends to be whatever Holt Rinehart and Somebody
sells to the state for its school systems. It may have changed recently,
but in the not distant past an elementary teacher in Texas was
"certified" to teach science with no more than ten semester hours of
undergrad science credits. Remember something: "certification" is not a
pedigree; it's like a dog license that "certifies" an individual to run
the educational streets!
What could we use? What we could use is (as John Foster Dulles put it
about US foreign policy years ago) and "agonizing reappraisal" of /what
and how/ we teach, and the legislative teeth to put it in operation!
More and more, I advocate getting rid of "teacher's colleges" because
they're little more than an educational union group governing being
"certified" to be a teacher,...a principal,...a
superintendent,...counselor,...on and on! Picture the M.D. who decides
to take a secondary school job teaching chemistry,...because he doesn't
have the required education courses, he's hired at 85% of the B.S.
degree salary until he makes up his "educational deficiencies." As
yourselves why! Ask your state legislatures: they have the power to run
the school systems.
I could go on and on, but another version of the short story is simply
this: instead of ranting "outside the door," how many of us are willing
to lay aside our bean counting and philosophizing for a few days
periodically and /go into the public school system /and /try to help/
the local science teacher who's in the blackboard jungle and is already
overburdened with paperwork and would really welcome the "specialist"
help in whatever your field is? ...and, by the way, do it without pay;
do it to help a teacher in need!
The years I taught were some of the happiest in my several decades of
this life. The kids were magnificent,...the administrations generally
wanted to concentrate on football, bands, and other forms of public
entertainment because it brought in "local funds." University
teacher/researchers become almost slaves to the "what's the funding"
game,...of which the institution takes a big bite "for the use of their
facilities" which usually means building another building and naming it
after themselves. Meanwhile, what comes to mind when you hear a
university's name? Yep! Football. That event where they make the
students move their cars out of the state-owned parking spot they're
paying rent to the university for,...so the university can rent it for
the football fans and pocket the money. Talk about your detailed
scams,...By the way, who makes the big bucks at the university
level,...the scientist or the football coach? Where's our local and
national emphasis? It's that way all over the US. We educate to play! In
India, China, Mexico (just to note a few), they educate to work. We used
to say, "Goodbye John, work hard!" Now it's more common to say, "Goodbye
John, take it easy." Notice the difference in a national attitude?
I've soap-boxed too long. It's time I took Will Rogers advice: "Never
pass up a good chance to shut up!" I'll close and await the blasts of
the return flame war.
Bob Ferry, PhD
Victoria, Texas,... where currently it's freezing cold,besides, I've
orchids to care for and a library of books to dig into.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:
(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either of these methods:
http://taxacom.markmail.org
Or use a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
End of Taxacom Digest, Vol 59, Issue 5
**************************************
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list