[Taxacom] evolution education

[Richard Zander]

This exchange is crucial, I think. Particularly " the problem being the
absence of evolution being taught as a science rather than a belief
system (and a particular evolution belief system at that)." 

There are three important definitions of science in Websters III. One is
any systematized body of knowledge, as in the "science of boxing."
Another is systematized and classified knowledge about the natural world
obtained and tested through the scientific method. The third is the
observation and classification of facts with the establishment of
verifiable general laws, chiefly by induction and hypotheses. (Much
paraphrased.). 

The public recognizes the first, of course, and it is trivial or obvious
or annoying to most Taxacomers. I think John Grehan recognizes the
second, mostly, because it emphasizes method. I like the third because
it emphasizes induction. Thus, we talk past each other, in my opinion.



* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 4:43 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] evolution education


Jeff concluded

"I would argue that eliminating evolution from high school science
education at best maintains our current situation, while continuing our
teaching of evolution does no additional harm, but has the potential for
good. I think you could possibly make an argument that we never
should've taught evolution in high school, but now that you have,
removing it would only remove the opportunity to fix the misconceptions
that exist in the general population and could possibly increase
tensions between the perceived "believers" and "nonbelievers". The
solution is in better teachers and better curriculum."

Yes one could argue that, just as much as the opposite. As for
misconceptions, I would argue that this is not the problem, the problem
being the absence of evolution being taught as a science rather than a
belief system (and a particular evolution belief system at that).

John Grehan