As environmental science teacher, how would you respond to some one who tells you?

Question

(a) That he or she does not believe in biological evolution because it is "just a theory"? How would you responnd if another student states, "(b) we should not worry about air pollution because through natural selection, the human species will develop lungs that can detoxify pollutants?

Answer 1

I would talk with them about how science works, and help them figure out why 'just a theory' isn't a meaningful argument. Then, I would talk with them about which parts of all the stuff that's called evolution is genuine, rigorous science, and which parts are jumping to conclusions with inadequate evidence, no evidence, or even contradicting evidence. If I could, I would talk about why people would do this for evolution, even though they would never do it for any other area of science.

Depending on the pollutants, there's no guarantee all or any life forms would develop tolerance. Meanwhile, the cost to health, life, and economies is just too high to ignore the problem, especially when reasonable alternatives are available. Even if all life forms develop tolerance, it's an unnecessary reduction in the quality of life.

Answer 2

(a)
Biological evolution is a cold, hard fact. Everyone knows this, but some people don't know that they know it. For example, people have been selectively breeding dogs to get specific traits for hundreds of years. The fact that they are able to create breeds of dogs that did not exist before (for example, the poodle or the basset hound) is solid evidence that evolution exists.

(b)
Since they stated they don't believe in evolution, yet they believe that natural selection will give humans lungs more resistant to pollution, they are BLATANTLY contradicting themselves.

However, since evolution obviously exists, I will explain the process. Evolution occurs when members of a species with a specific trait are selectively killed. For humans to evolve lungs more resistant to pollution, you would have to selectively kill (or prevent from breeding) all the humans with the more sensitive lungs for many generations. After maybe 50 generations (about 1200 years), you would see a noticeable difference in lung function.

Answer 3

a) They are correct. Macro-Evolution is just a theory. Creationism is just a theory. Intelligent Design is just a theory. Science is about analyzing theories and looking for proofs that disprove a given theory. Like was said before, they don't have to believe in any of these theories. Being ignorant of them, however, reduces their ability to refute the others and defend their own. Without knowledge of other theories one may be trying to disprove it while using an argument that is equally relevant to both theories.

b) We have to worry about air pollution because it is affecting us. Maybe future generations will develop air scrubbers in their lung either natural or man-made. We won't get those in time to help us though. They also will not be able to help the other living things on this earth.

Answer 4

(a) Assign them a special project to do a full length investigation of another theory that has provided a more "REAL" proof than the theory of evolution of how we all just popped up with the form we are today (I'm sure Adam and Eve were monkeys), if they say that a spaceship brought us here from another planet then I suggest an F for laziness.

(b) That would be interesting, but that's very improbable....
1.- it would take us thousands and thousands of years to develop lungs that can withstand toxins that accelerates the decomposure (rottening) of your internal organs
2.- What small percentage do you believe "natural selection is?", jeez, how many prehistoric animals do you see walking around these days, i think most or all of them are reptiles, bugs or plants.... we certainly arent reptiles or bugs or plants
3.-In not too many years natural selection will be second hand in comparison to technology, there will be cyborgs with artificial implants far more superior than what we are today or even nanotechnology medicine.

Answer 5

I would tell the student that in science, you disprove theories through experimentation or empirical evidence. For (a) I would then ask the student to describe what they have found to disprove evolution. For (b) i would say that adaptation to air pollution is a possibility, and ask them to describe how existing theories either support or refute this idea, and they would plan a scientific study to evaluate this theory.

Answer 6

<>Obviously the first student is a creationist. As a science teacher, you will have to deal with this frequently. You'd better get used to it. Don't ridicule their theology, just be a teacher and teach.
The second student, while naive, might just end up being right. Only time will tell, as natural selection has been telling for millions of year. Just point out, though, that if it doesn't happen, there eventually might not be anything to select!

Answer 7

A - They don't have to belive in it, You teach the THORY they learn the THORY. Nobody ever said you had to belive it.

B - Humans would not evolve lungs that can detoxify pollutants fast enough. We pollute the air faster than evelution, by the time we had specilised lungs the air would be so dirty we'd need to evolve new lungs and so on and so fourth. Anyway, what about the ozone water and animails that are effected by the air pollutents..

Also tell them that they are bright kids

Good Questions ^_^

Answer 8

a) You'll get these cultists and their "just a theory". Try setting them an assignment on gathering evidence for and against evolution, or defining what Theory means. Get them thinking for themselves.
b) Again, get them to think about it. Assignment on geological time, or on rates of evolutionary change. What must happen for us to evolve lungs to take out pollutants? What if bees or spiders can't evolve in time?

As a teacher, you should try to get them to think.

Answer 9

For evolution, read my proof of it; a copy is available on request. (Please provide an e-mail address.) For the natural selection question, point out that evolution requires time, and if the air pollution is sufficiently toxic there may not be enough time available.

Answer 10

i don't know