Don’t Call it “Darwinism”

Evolutionary biology owes much to Charles Darwin, whose discussions of common descent and natural selection provide the foundations of the discipline. But evolutionary biology has expanded well beyond its foundations to encompass many theories and concepts unknown in the 19th century. The term “Darwinism” is, therefore, ambiguous and misleading. Compounding the problem of “Darwinism” is the hijacking of the term by creationists to portray evolution as a dangerous ideology—an “ism”—that has no place in the science classroom. When scientists and teachers use “Darwinism” as synonymous with evolutionary biology, it reinforces such a misleading portrayal and hinders efforts to present the scientific standing of evolution accurately. Accordingly, the term “Darwinism” should be abandoned as a synonym for evolutionary biology.     

A No-Holds-Barred Evolution Curriculum for Elementary and Junior High School Students

Understanding the basic mechanism of evolution by natural selection together with examples of how it works in nature is crucial for explaining and teaching the workings of biology and ecology to young students. Dobzhansky said it best in his advice to educators of biology: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This premise is true at all levels of biology but especially so in the elementary years where foundations of science knowledge are laid. Elementary students are capable of learning cohesive and connected stories of biological principles and learning them within a no-holds-barred arena wherein concepts and processes usually reserved for high school years are taught with special care, appropriate exercises, and patient explanations. This story must include solid introductions to the fundamental principles of evolution by natural selection that are threaded within and alongside those of basic biology and ecology. This paper attempts to make the case for the inclusion of connected stories of biology in the earliest years of education and to include within that education the unifying theme of all biology and ecology studies—evolution.     

The Growing Visibility of Creationism in Northern Ireland: Are New Science Teachers Equipped to Deal with the Issues?

The growing visibility of various forms of creationism in Northern Ireland raises issues for science education. Attempts have been made at political levels to have such “alternatives” to evolution taught in the science classroom, and the issue has received coverage in local press and media. A sample of 112 pre-service science teachers answered a survey on attitudes toward evolution. Preliminary analysis revealed many of these new teachers held views contrary to scientific consensus—over one fifth doubt the evidence for human evolution, and over one quarter dispute the common ancestry of life. Over two thirds indicated a preference for teaching a “range of theories” regarding these issues in science. In addition, 49 pre-service biology teachers viewed a DVD resource promoting “intelligent design” and completed an evaluation of it. The biology teachers also took part in either focus groups or additional questionnaires. A majority took the resource at face value and made positive comments regarding its utility. Many articulated views contrary to the stated positions of science academies, professional associations, and the UK government teaching directives regarding creationism. Most indicated a perception that intelligent design is legitimate science and that there is a scientific “controversy” regarding the legitimacy of evolution. Concern is raised over the ability of these new teachers to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific theories. The suggestion is made that the issue should be addressed directly with pre-service science teachers to make clear the status of such “alternatives.” The paper raises implications for science education and questions for further research.

Civic Biology and the Origin of the School Antievolution Movement

In discussing the origins of the antievolution movement in American high schools within the framework of science and religion, much is overlooked about the influence of educational trends in shaping this phenomenon. This was especially true in the years before the 1925 Scopes trial, the beginnings of the school antievolution movement. There was no sudden realization in the 1920’s – sixty years after the Origin of Species was published – that Darwinism conflicted with the Bible, but until evolution was being taught in the high schools, there was no impetus to outlaw it. The creation of “civic biology” curricula in the late 1910’s and early 20’s, spearheaded by a close-knit community of textbook authors, brought evolution into the high school classroom as part of a complete reshaping of “biology” as a school subject. It also incorporated progressive ideologies about the purposes of compulsory public education in shaping society, and civic biology was fundamentally focused on the applications of the life sciences to human life. Antievolution legislation was part of a broader response to the ideologies of the new biology field, and was a reaction not only to the content of the new subject, but to the increasingly centralized control and regulation of education. Viewing the early school antievolution movement through the science-religion conflict is an artifact of the Scopes trial’s re-creation of its origins. What largely caused support for␣the school antievolution movement in the South and particularly Tennessee were concerns over public education, which biology came to epitomize.     

Improving How Evolution Is Taught: Facilitating a Shift from Memorization to Evolutionary Thinking

In North America, public understanding and acceptance of evolution is alarmingly low. Moreover, acceptance rates are declining, and studies suggest that even students who have taken courses in evolution have the same misunderstandings as the general public. These data signal deficiencies in our educational system and provide a “call to arms” to improve how evolution is taught. Many studies show that student education can be improved by replacing lecture-based pedagogy with active learning approaches—where the role of students changes from passive note taking to active problem solving. Here, we describe changes made to a second-year undergraduate evolution course to facilitate a shift to active learning and improve student understanding of evolution. First, lectures were used only sparingly and were largely replaced by problem-solving activities. Second, standard textbooks were replaced by “popular” books applying evolutionary thinking to topics students encounter on a daily basis. Lastly, predefined laboratory exercises were replaced by student-designed and implemented research projects. These changes led to increased student engagement and enjoyment, improved understanding of evolution and ability to apply evolutionary thinking to biological problems, and increased student recognition that evolutionary thinking is important not only in the classroom but also in their daily lives.     

Extending Darwin’s analogy: Bridging differences in concepts of selection between farmers, biologists, and plant breeders

Darwin developed his theory of evolution based on an analogy between artificial selection by breeders of his day and “natural selection.” For Darwin, selection included what biologists came to see as being composed of (1) phenotypic selection of individuals based on phenotypic differences, and, when these are based on heritable genotypic differences, (2) genetic response between generations, which can result in (3) evolution (cumulative directional genetic response over generations). The use of the term “selection” in biology and plant breeding today reflects Darwin’s assumption—phenotypic selection is only biologically significant when it results in evolution. In contrast, research shows that small-scale, traditionally-based farmers select seed as part of an integrated production and consumption system in which selection is often not part of an evolutionary process, but is still useful to farmers. Extending Darwin’s analogy to farmers can facilitate communication between farmers, biologists, and plant breeders to improve selection and crop genetic resource conservation.     

Evolution Education in Utah: A State Office of Education–University Partnership Focuses on Why Evolution Matters

Several groups of people are essential for effectively teaching the theory of evolution in public schools. Teachers of course are at the leading edge of educating students. However, school district administrators, school boards, state education officers, and university professors all play critical roles in this endeavor. Whereas scientific discoveries and teacher training typically occur at the university level, it is school district leaders and teachers who actually disseminate this information in a way that creates an educated population of students. In this study, we introduce a partnership focused on strengthening evolution education in Utah’s public schools. Our program centers on the importance of evolution as an applied science and one that can be readily integrated throughout the biology curriculum. Our 2-day workshop—conducted in each Utah school district—brings together elected school board members, school district administrators, public school science teachers, and university professors to overcome barriers that can arise when teaching the theory of evolution as part of the 7–12 public school curriculum.     

Viability selection on body size in a non-marine ostracod

One of the most important research topics in evolutionary ecology is body size evolution. Actually, several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the many observed patterns—also known as “rules”—of body size variation in across latitude, temperature, and time. The temperature–size rule (TSR), describes an inverse relationship between body size and temperature. We took advantage of the “natural laboratory” that the crustacean populations at the Chilean altiplano offers, to study the TSR in ostracods. We studied three populations of Limnocythere atacamae that are physically separated by several kilometers, and differ mainly by their permanent thermal regime. We found larger individuals in the hotspring compared to the cold ponds. Also, in the hotspring we found a significant quadratic selection coefficient, suggesting stabilizing selection in this population. The fitness profiles showed stabilizing selection in the hotspring, and positive directional selection in the ponds. Our results suggest the existence of an optimal body size above the population means. This optimal size is apparently attained in the hotspring population. Then, natural selection appears to be promoting a shift in the mean phenotype that, for some reason, is not attained in the cold environments. Genetic slippage and population bottleneck would explain this absence of response to selection.     

Mourning and Forgiveness as Sites of Reconciliation Pedagogies

This paper explores mourning and forgiveness not simply as sources of existential, political, or emotional meaning, but primarily as possible sites of reconciliation pedagogies. Reconciliation pedagogies are public and school pedagogical practices that examine how certain ideas can enrich our thinking and action toward reconciliation—not through a moralistic agenda but through an approach that views such ideas both constructively and critically. Mourning and forgiveness may constitute valuable points of departure for reconciliation pedagogies, if common pain is acknowledged as an important aspect of rehumanizing the “enemy-other.” This work is difficult and the wider society may be skeptical; however, such work is about assisting a “never again” mentality develop in schools and civil society.     

Science and the Concept of Evolution: From the Big Bang to the Origin and Evolution of Life

The common thread of evolution runs through all science disciplines, and the concept of evolution enables students to better understand the nature of the universe and our origins. “Science and the Concept of Evolution” is one of two interdisciplinary science Core courses taken by Dowling College undergraduates as part of their General Education requirements. The course examines basic principles and methods of science by following the concept of evolution from the big bang to the origin and evolution of life. Case studies of leading scientists illustrate how their ideas developed and contributed to the evolution of our understanding of the world. Evidences for physical, chemical, and biological evolution are explored, and students learn to view the evolution of matter and of ideas as a natural process of change over space and time.     

A centenary of academic and less learned Food Microbiology Pitfalls of the past and promises for the future

A review is presented of the development of Food Microbiology from its roots in different disciplines — including human and animal medicine, general microbiology, agricultural science and food chemistry — to an autonomous science with the main vocation to provide the knowledge allowing providing food that is wholesome, of high quality and acceptable in the microbiological sense. This evolution entailed a change in approach from mere, and often rather primitive inspection of end-products to intervention by (i) identification of hazard points (“critical points” or CPs) by ecological studies; (ii) elimination of CPs by elaboration of Good Manufacturing and Distribution Practices (GMPs); (iii) validation of GMPs by monitoring production lines and final products at point of sale and gauging the results by Risk Analysis. It is emphasized, that although advanced and ecologically sound techniques have become available, it will still require extensive education and training at all levels before the scientific advances outlined in this review will have been fully integrated in day-to-day food production and catering in developed as well developing areas of the world. Interdisciplinary instruction and co-operation cannot be missed in attempts to reach this goal.     

Why “Sudden Appearance” Is Not as It Appears

Recent action taken by the Texas State Board of Education has opened the door to the inclusion of creationist arguments into public school science curriculum in that state and—because of the critical role of Texas in textbook adoptions—perhaps in many other states as well. One of the arguments that have been targeted by creationists is the “sudden appearance” of animal phyla at the base of the Cambrian period (i.e., the Cambrian explosion). While the creationist argument is both misleading and deeply flawed, high school biology teachers are often lacking the relevant paleontological knowledge to refute the argument. This paper attempts to provide teachers with a set of core counterpoints to the creationists’ claims along with a list of online resources that are highly visual in nature and should provide the means to help stimulate genuine student critical thinking about this issue, an alleged goal of the creationist agenda.     

J D Bernal (1901–1971) in perspective

Conclusion We must conclude that the sub-title of Bernal’s “The Social Function of Science” — “What science does: what science could do” is still the relevant challenge and indicates Bernal’s chief contribution, besides the foundation of molecular biology to our civilization. It is manifest that resources spent on armaments are a monstrous pathological symptom of our social structure. The ancient problem of “what is property” and what may be “owned” and by whom or by what organs of society is awakening.     

Model of development of science by the example of limnology

Limnology—the science about lakes—is the young and relatively closed area of studies; its existence is owing to several hundreds of scientists. The International Society of Limnologists holds its meetings since 1922. We used materials of these meetings to find out the main stages of development of this science; among these stages there were both fast and relatively calm periods. Based on analysis of these data, we constructed a model of development of the science, the same data being used for tuning and verification of the model. We have suggested that the main regularities and mechanisms of development of limnology can be extrapolated to other sciences. The main “acting person” in the model is population of scientists. Each scientist, with some probability, can propose new ideas as well as use in his studies some particular complex of the already accumulated knowledge and ideas. The model also takes into consideration how the scientific information is spreading, as well as some individual peculiarities of model scientists, such as age, experience, communicability. After the model parameters had been chosen in such a way that is described adequately development of limnology, we performed a series of experiments by changing some of the characteristics and obtained rather unexpected results published preliminary in the short work (Levchenko, V.F. and Menshutkin, V.V., Int. J. Comput. Anticip. Syst., 2008, vol. 22, pp. 63–75) and discussed here in the greater detail. It is revealed that development of science occurs irregularly and is sharply decelerated at low level of communication between scientists and the absence of scientific schools, while the age of “scientific youth” of scientist usually begins only after 40 years.     

Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History’s “Travels in the Great Tree of Life”

The Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History developed a 1,000-square-foot exhibition to help the general public understand the concept of phylogenetic relationships and their depiction on scientific Trees, or cladograms. In addition, exhibition planners hoped visitors would understand that research on the Tree of Life is a massive, complex undertaking requiring powerful computers and that Tree research has many potential practical applications. Museum exhibits designed to convey scientific information must use “stealth” to accomplish their cognitive goals: Unlike students in formal science education classes, visitors are not obliged to learn—they do not learn because they must pass a final examination. Informal educators must engage visitors’ interest so that they willingly take in new information and perhaps even learn new skills, change attitudes, and behaviors. “Travels in the Great Tree of Life” succeeded in engaging visitors who came away with awareness and understanding of scientific Trees, the immensity of the construct, and to a lesser extent, potential practical applications.     

It's Déjà Vu All Over Again: The Intelligent Design Movement's Recycling of Creationist Strategies

The intelligent design (ID) creationist movement is now a quarter of a century old. ID proponents at the Discovery Institute, headquartered in Seattle, WA, USA, insist that ID is not creationism. However, it is the direct descendant of the creation science movement that began in the 1960s and continued until the definitive ruling against creationism by the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard 1987, which struck down laws that required balancing the teaching of evolution with creationism in public schools. Already anticipating in the early 1980s that Arkansas and Louisiana “balanced treatment” laws would be declared unconstitutional, a group of creationists led by Charles Thaxton began laying the groundwork for what is now the ID movement. After Edwards, Thaxton and his associates promoted ID aggressively until it, too, was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District 2005. Subsequently, in 2008, the Discovery Institute began its multistate promotion of model “academic freedom” legislation that bears striking parallels to the 1980s balanced treatment laws. Because of Kitzmiller, ID proponents have written their model legislation in code language in an effort to avoid another court challenge. Yet despite attempting to evade the legal constraints imposed by Edwards, they are merely recycling earlier creationist tactics that date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The tactics that ID creationists now use—promoting legislation, publishing “educational” materials, establishing a “research” institute, and sanitizing their terminology—are the recycled tactics of their creation science predecessors.     

The Jackprot Simulation Couples Mutation Rate with Natural Selection to Illustrate How Protein Evolution Is Not Random

Protein evolution is not a random process. Views which attribute randomness to molecular change, deleterious nature to single-gene mutations, insufficient geological time, or population size for molecular improvements to occur, or invoke “design creationism” to account for complexity in molecular structures and biological processes, are unfounded. Scientific evidence suggests that natural selection tinkers with molecular improvements by retaining adaptive peptide sequence. We used slot-machine probabilities and ion channels to show biological directionality on molecular change. Because ion channels reside in the lipid bilayer of cell membranes, their residue location must be in balance with the membrane’s hydrophobic/philic nature; a selective “pore” for ion passage is located within the hydrophobic region. We contrasted the random generation of DNA sequence for KcsA, a bacterial two-transmembrane-domain (2TM) potassium channel, from Streptomyces lividans, with an under-selection scenario, the “jackprot,” which predicted much faster evolution than by chance. We wrote a computer program in JAVA APPLET version 1.0 and designed an online interface, The Jackprot Simulation , to model a numerical interaction between mutation rate and natural selection during a scenario of polypeptide evolution. Winning the “jackprot,” or highest-fitness complete-peptide sequence, required cumulative smaller “wins” (rewarded by selection) at the first, second, and third positions in each of the 161 KcsA codons (“jackdons” that led to “jackacids” that led to the “jackprot”). The “jackprot” is a didactic tool to demonstrate how mutation rate coupled with natural selection suffices to explain the evolution of specialized proteins, such as the complex six-transmembrane (6TM) domain potassium, sodium, or calcium channels. Ancestral DNA sequences coding for 2TM-like proteins underwent nucleotide “edition” and gene duplications to generate the 6TMs. Ion channels are essential to the physiology of neurons, ganglia, and brains, and were crucial to the evolutionary advent of consciousness. The Jackprot Simulation illustrates in a computer model that evolution is not and cannot be a random process as conceived by design creationists.     

Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology II: impediments to integration and application

Conservation biology needs to be concerned not just with exogenous threats to populations, but also with the changing nature of populations themselves. In a previous review paper, we highlighted evolution in contemporary time (years to decades) as a largely overlooked aspect of population responses to environmental perturbations. We argued that these responses might affect the fate of natural, managed and exotic populations. In the present review, we discuss issues that may limit the integration of contemporary evolution into conservation biology—with the intent that recognition of these limitations may foster research, discussion and resolution. In particular, we consider (1) alternative perceptions of “evolutionary” and “ecological” time, (2) the role of contemporary evolution as an ecological process, (3) fitness as a bridge between evolution and conservation, and (4) challenges faced by conservation strategies based on gene flow estimation or manipulation. We close by highlighting some situations in which current conservation approaches and contemporary evolution may require reconciliation.     

The crucial experiment of Wilhelm Johannsen

I call an experiment “crucial” when it makes possible a decisive choice between conflicting hypotheses. Joharmsen's selection for size and weight within pure lines of beans played a central role in the controversy over continuity or discontinuity in hereditary change, often known as the Biometrician-Mendelian controversy. The “crucial” effect of this experiment was not an instantaneous event, but an extended process of repeating similar experiments and discussing possible objections. It took years before Johannsen's claim about the genetic stability of pure lines was accepted as conclusively demonstrated by the community of geneticists. The paper also argues that crucial experiments thus interpreted contradict certain ideas about the underdetermination of theories by facts and the theory-ladenness of facts which have been influential in recent history and sociology of science. The acceptance of stability in the pure lines did not rest on prior preference for continuity or discontinuity. And this fact permitted a final choice between the two theories. When such choice is characterized as “decisive” or “final”, this is not meant in an absolute philosophical sense. What we achive in these cases is highly reliable empirical knowledge. The philosophical possibility of drawing (almost) any conclusion in doubt should be distinguished from reasonable doubt in empirical science.     

Why Don��t People Think Evolution Is True? Implications for Teaching, In and Out of the Classroom

The causes of non-acceptance of evolution are groupable into five categories: inadequate understanding of the empirical evidence and the content of modern evolutionary theory, inadequate understanding of the nature of science, religion, various psychological factors, and political and social factors. This multiplicity of causes is not sufficiently appreciated by many scientists, educators, and journalists, and the widespread rejection of evolution is a much more complicated problem than many of these front-line practitioners think it is. Solutions to the widespread non-acceptance of evolution must therefore involve not just further resolution of the “religion vs. science” controversy. They must also involve better communication of empirical evidence for evolution, more effective explication of the nature of science, and explicitly addressing the numerous significant psychological obstacles that evolution presents to many (perhaps most) people. There is no clear roadmap to how to do all of this, but some practical recommendations include (1) more research on why and when different people accept or do not accept evolution when they are exposed to it, especially the role of “scientific” vs. “affective” causes for non-acceptance, and also on apparently deeply rooted psychological obstacles to acceptance. (2) A more explicit approach to explication and understanding of the causes for non-acceptance of evolution should support the often-stated goal of understanding “where students are” prior to implementing the kind of approaches frequently advocated for teaching evolution. (3) Integration of multiple educational perspectives and academic disciplines to support application of pedagogical strategies in actual educational settings. (4) Increased development and application of approaches to evolution education in settings beyond the K–16 classroom, such as museums, nature centers, zoos, parks, and aquaria.