aprilannies wrote:youngborean wrote:Then we could let students come up with there own interpretation of data including fossils, half life data, geology. What would be wrong with allowing for reinterpretation rather than teaching theories? To me, it would be more advantageous to start from scratch with students, rather then tell them to assume something is right. If they come to the same conclusion, then we have established science by reproducibility. And everyone could be happy. I'll propose a new question.
If we were to teach all of the data without ever mentioning biogenesis or teaching the theory of evolution, would students inherently decide that species have evolved from nothing to their present state? The answer should be yes if the theory is that much different from Creationism.
This is an unrealistic model for education. Students on lets say... the sixth or seventh grade level, on average, do NOT possess the capabilities to come to the conclusion of evolution because they lack the necessary education to reach such conclusions. That's like saying, lets give this 10th grade physics class all the necessary data and see if they come up with the theory of relativity... it doesn't make sense.
It is partly unrealistic, and partly essential. There has been a push for some years to teach science more realistically. As you know, science is not memorizing things that people tell you. It's a process of investigation, data collection, and data interpretation. The "facts" are just the "current best interpretation." It's very hard to move science education in this direction, partly because many science teachers have themselves been taught that science is just memorizing facts. Still, it is essential that we re-work science teaching. Evolution is one area where it is clear that we need to do so.
We can't expect students to come up with the full theory of evolution, and a good model for the chemistry that eventually coalesced as Life. There just isn't time to give them all of the data. We're talking about 150 years' worth of accumulated findings in biology, chemistry, geology, and the various sub-fields of each. There's one heck of a lot of information. So, you're right that students don't have the background or scientific sophistication to handle it all.
They can, however, handle portions of it. I agree with juliod that young students can use microbiological techniques to develop an understanding of mutation--even if they have not yet developed the complete "mental movie" that they need to understand the molecular mechanics behind DNA changes altering proteins, altering phenotypes.
9th graders, certainly, can handle the basic molecular biology (we do teach it then, after all), and can therefore put together an answer to the simple question of: "if mutations occur at some low rate, and cannot be prevented, then what will happen to a gene as it is passed from parents to offspring, generation after generation after generation?"
They can also handle the information I discussed
here. If we look at DNA similarities among organisms, we can build a diagram to illustrate them. What are the likely events that can have produced this pattern?
It might be more difficult to provide data, and have them interpret it, for the mechanism of mutation causing morphological change (since little is taught about embryology, or of the roles of developmental control genes in pattern formation). It might also be tricky to work with radiometric dating. We'd be dealing with half-lives and exponential decay, rather than mere algebra, which is hard enough for many of them. We'd also have the difficulty of sample contamination...how do the students know that the samples were collected correctly, and analyzed properly? Still, we
could give them a table showing the data and the results of the calculations for a gazillion samples, and let them derive inferences from the pre-worked calculations.
But where do we stop? Biology I must, by law, cover vast territory. How much time can be devoted to any one subject? As you said, this is a major constraint. I think the solution is to develop
some data collection/interpretation projects to ensure that the scientific methodology is understood (and practiced), and blend this with
some "direct instruction" (which is the new euphemism for boring lectures). There is much to do, and we can all participate.
Should we just stay away from all stories and stick to data? Then we could let students come up with there own interpretation of data including fossils, half life data, geology. What would be wrong with allowing for reinterpretation rather than teaching theories? To me, it would be more advantageous to start from scratch with students, rather then tell them to assume something is right. If they come to the same conclusion, then we have established science by reproducibility. And everyone could be happy. I'll propose a new question. 
)
