Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)
That means the content of what most DUers learned and know about evolution from high school or first year college biology. The ppt is not anti-evolution.
But the power point is strong in the usual points and weak in the usual points: it's best case for evolutionary mechanism is for microevolution via natural selection. How macroevolutionary mechanisms might actually work is mostly glossed over, largely limited to Mayr's biological species concept, and completely ignoring the significant role of extinction. Macroevolution is demonstrated by its consequences even if professional biologists are unsure if it is really the sum of microevolutionary mechanisms in the context of vertical transmission of alleles.
But all that is just as it usually is in middle school/high school presentations of evolution that follow a BSCS style biology curriculum. And that's my point. The ppt is standard fare with some edgy illustrations (competing castles, octomom as Malthusian planetary overpopulator)
So what's the deal with the warring castles slide? It obviously harkens to the evolution vs creation conflict, but it is presented with no commentary. Yes, the evolution side is associated with 'social ills' as might seen by some christian fundamentalists on the creation side. So, the slide recognizes that the controversy involves a lot of name calling chauvinism and often not much meaningful critique of the opponents' arguments. That rings true.
But on its face, it suggests only one side engages in that behavior. That doesn't ring true. Supporters on both sides and (to a disappointing extent) that includes leading advocates engaging in ad hominem name calling.
Maybe that was mentioned in the oral commentary with the slide presentation.At any level the viewer is left to speculate on what the author's purposes were as this slide was presented in class.
The rest of the ppt does not show any support for the creationist position. My speculation, colored by ~3 decades of college level teaching in zoology/biology, is that it seems likely to have been included in the lesson as a recognition that at least one alternative explanation to evolution exists, and that particular alternative is associated with controversy between two "camps", one of which is religious.
Within the power point, the slide is positioned to lead into an explicit statement that the instructor is going to teach what scientists believe, but individuals' religious beliefs will be respected.
I suspect many instructors make this same point; I certainly did when I taught evolution at church sponsored colleges...although the only place I ever ran into objecting students was public universities. Go figure.
I see the slide as being reflective of society. It may be a poor choice for a website with public access, not because it demonstrates ad hominem name calling against the evolutionist castle, but because its edginess is a red flag for any viewer primed to take offense.
And within the ppt that could work on all sides. IMO, the picture of "Octomom" surrounded by infants as an illustration of the Malthusian concept that all species are capable of reproducing beyond the carrying capacity of the environment is likely just as offensive to persons belonging to anti-contraception camps.
= new reply since forum marked as read