Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 09:34 PM

I�ve been thinking recently how to best incorporate creationism into biology classrooms. I have decided on the following technique.

BIOL 3600 FINAL EXAM

This is your final exam. It consists of five short answer questions. For each question, explain what scientific evidence and research invalidates the comments. If no scientific evidence invalidates the points please indicate what scientific evidence validates them. References to studies mentioned in class discussion, lecture, and the textbook will get you extra points.

1. �A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set. . . .�

2. �Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.�

3. �The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science.�

4. �The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.�

5. �Similarities�whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else�are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?�

------------------------------------------
References for you Infidels.
1-2. <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm</a>
3-4. <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-330.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-330.htm</a>
5. <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm</a>

RufusAtticus · 10-11-2002, 09:35 PM

PS, any of you want to take the test? No cheating!

Quetzal · 10-11-2002, 11:31 PM

Tongue in cheek aside, Rufus, this is very good. I think, with your permission, I'm going to use it for my "cretinist lesson plan" project. Not, obviously, as a final exam, but rather as the key discussion points in the final section where the syllabus talks about "Discuss the evidences for each theory and the possibility of applying scientific epistemology for further research." I think you've done a great job putting the creationist "theory" into five simple questions.

picklepuss · 10-12-2002, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:

BIOL 3600 FINAL EXAM

1. “A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances.

Hi;

I am trying to take the 'exam', but as was usually the case at school, I don't understand the questions. I mean, an infertile group of organisms that refused to interbreed with fertile organisms would simply die out, wouldn't they?

Quote:

Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set. . . .”

What are, or what do you mean by, "mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set. . ."? I suppose I had better get clarification on "evolutionary change" while I'm at it, please.

Quote:

2. “Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.”

But your exam stipulates:
"For each question, explain what scientific evidence and research invalidates the comments. If no scientific evidence invalidates the points please indicate what scientific evidence validates them."

I presume that by scientific evidence you mean empirical observations, but this statement has nothing to do with empiricism. It's a statement about reasoning, specifically 'circular reasoning', a logical fallacy. So how do I answer it in the terms set by the examiner?

I could do the rest of the questions, I think.

RufusAtticus · 10-12-2002, 08:36 AM

Go for it Morpho.

I like this format because it makes students actually think. It also give any closet creationists in class the chance to put up or shut up.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

RufusAtticus · 10-12-2002, 08:52 AM

Hi Picklepuss,

Welcome to the Secular Web. Please introduce yourself in our <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">Welcome Forum</a>.

Quote:

I am trying to take the 'exam', but as was usually the case at school, I don't understand the questions.

Well the test is designed to be given to students in a college evolutionary biology program. Such students will understand exactly what evolution is, what it is not. and how it got there. Hopefully, that will be enough information for them to write goot rebutals.

Quote:

I mean, an infertile group of organisms that refused to interbreed with fertile organisms would simply die out, wouldn't they?

The quote used "interfertile" not "infertile." Does that clarify things?

Quote:

What are, or what do you mean by, "mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set. . ."? I suppose I had better get clarification on "evolutionary change" while I'm at it, please.

Remember I didn't make these quotes. They are the actual words of creationists.

Quote:

I presume that by scientific evidence you mean empirical observations, but this statement has nothing to do with empiricism. It's a statement about reasoning, specifically 'circular reasoning', a logical fallacy. So how do I answer it in the terms set by the examiner?

Okay, maybe the original instructions were too narrow. But it can be answered by discussing exactly what evolution theory states, not misinterpretatios of it.

Bubba · 10-12-2002, 03:11 PM

Rufus, et al...

Went to a great sci fi convention this weekend. You would have liked it, lots of people there into Animie. We had a eally good set of lectures last night by a couple of OSU biology profs, one of whom teaches evolutionary biology.

I talked to the second prof after his little lecture and asked him how he dealt with creationists in his classroom. He replied that a whole buch of freshmen were upset with the idea of evolution when presented with it in Intro to Biology. He merely asks them similar questions or asks them to present reasonable evidence for creationism or a young universe.

Despite having taught classes of approx. 700-800 for several years he's never had anyone take him up on this...

I like the way you worded the questions.

Bubba <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Coragyps · 10-12-2002, 03:55 PM

Rufus: I think it's Not Fair that you are asking those poor gawd-fearing creationist students questions where they actually have to write an answer. You should make it true-false or multiple guess, er, choice. Giving them hard exams might make it hard for them to get good enough grades to get their teaching certificates.

RufusAtticus · 10-12-2002, 05:33 PM

No, no, Coragyps, they'll get B's and won't be able to go to medschool after all. Darn...

scigirl · 10-12-2002, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>No, no, Coragyps, they'll get B's and won't be able to go to medschool after all. Darn...</strong>

HAHAHA!

scigirl

10-11-2002, 09:34 PM	#1
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	BIOL 3600: Introduction to Evolution I�ve been thinking recently how to best incorporate creationism into biology classrooms. I have decided on the following technique. BIOL 3600 FINAL EXAM This is your final exam. It consists of five short answer questions. For each question, explain what scientific evidence and research invalidates the comments. If no scientific evidence invalidates the points please indicate what scientific evidence validates them. References to studies mentioned in class discussion, lecture, and the textbook will get you extra points. 1. �A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set. . . .� 2. �Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.� 3. �The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science.� 4. �The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.� 5. �Similarities�whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else�are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?� ------------------------------------------ References for you Infidels. 1-2. <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm</a> 3-4. <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-330.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-330.htm</a> 5. <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-11-2002, 09:35 PM	#2
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	PS, any of you want to take the test? No cheating!

10-11-2002, 11:31 PM	#3
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Tongue in cheek aside, Rufus, this is very good. I think, with your permission, I'm going to use it for my "cretinist lesson plan" project. Not, obviously, as a final exam, but rather as the key discussion points in the final section where the syllabus talks about "Discuss the evidences for each theory and the possibility of applying scientific epistemology for further research." I think you've done a great job putting the creationist "theory" into five simple questions.

10-12-2002, 08:36 AM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Go for it Morpho. I like this format because it makes students actually think. It also give any closet creationists in class the chance to put up or shut up. [ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

10-12-2002, 03:11 PM	#7
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Rufus, et al... Went to a great sci fi convention this weekend. You would have liked it, lots of people there into Animie. We had a eally good set of lectures last night by a couple of OSU biology profs, one of whom teaches evolutionary biology. I talked to the second prof after his little lecture and asked him how he dealt with creationists in his classroom. He replied that a whole buch of freshmen were upset with the idea of evolution when presented with it in Intro to Biology. He merely asks them similar questions or asks them to present reasonable evidence for creationism or a young universe. Despite having taught classes of approx. 700-800 for several years he's never had anyone take him up on this... I like the way you worded the questions. Bubba <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

10-12-2002, 03:55 PM	#8
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Rufus: I think it's Not Fair that you are asking those poor gawd-fearing creationist students questions where they actually have to write an answer. You should make it true-false or multiple guess, er, choice. Giving them hard exams might make it hard for them to get good enough grades to get their teaching certificates.

10-12-2002, 05:33 PM	#9
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	No, no, Coragyps, they'll get B's and won't be able to go to medschool after all. Darn...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.