February 27, 2004


To: The Ohio Board of Education


From: Thomas A. Baillieul, Geologist


REVIEW OF INTERNET RESOURCES CITED AND RECOMMENDED FOR THE LESSON PLAN ON CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EVOLUTION - 10TH GRADE BIOLOGY


This letter is a continuation of the one I sent you on February 21st regarding the appropriateness and accessibility of the text references cited in the Critical Analysis of Evolution lesson Plan.


The lesson in question is proposed to meet the benchmark indicator of demonstrating how scientists critically examine aspects of evolutionary theory. Thus, the indicator imposes two requirements: 1) a consideration of current topics in evolutionary biology; and 2) an examination of science as it is carried out by mainstream scientists working within the framework of the scientific method.


A major element of this controversial lesson plan is for 10th Grade Biology students, with minimal guidance, to seek out sources of information and “evidence” to one of the two sides proposed for each aspect of evolutionary theory. The references cited in the lesson plan for each of the aspects have been shown to be either: out of date for discussion of current topics in evolutionary biology; out-of-print; inaccurate in their content; not pertinent to the stated topic; containing material at too high a level of complexity for introductory high school student use; or not readily available to students and teachers. Thus, with the limited choice of options available to find reference material, most students will seek to obtain their “evidence” from the Internet.


Hypothesis - Given that most students will seek to complete this lesson by accessing information from the Internet with little or no guidance as to what constitutes an appropriate web site, or how to distinguish peer-reviewed, consensus science from pseudo-scientific material, will the terminology and other content from the lesson plan guide students to high-quality information?


To test this hypothesis I first examined the web sites recommended by the lesson author as suitable places to find useful information. Next, I performed a search of web sites with the Google search engine, using in turn the titles of the proposed “critical analysis aspects”, with the addition of the word “evolution”. Additionally, I performed a separate search using key terminology and definitions from the lesson that would likely be used by students (e.g., “evidence challenging evolution”, “amount of biological change”, and “spontaneous generation”). I only took the first 10 returns from each search, assuming that most 10th Graders would not go beyond that level themselves. I categorized each listed site according to type and, based on content, determined whether the site had editorial review standards for content accuracy, whether the information contained represented the current scientific literature, and whether the information was age appropriate for the 10th Grade.


Results


Lesson “Aspect”

Appropriate sites

Inappropriate sites

Sites appropriate w/ teacher supervision

Homology

1

5

4

Fossil Record

3

6

1

Antibiotic resistance

1

9

0

Peppered moths

1

8

1

Endosymbiosis

2

8

0




Terminology/ definition

Appropriate sites

Inappropriate sites

Sites appropriate w/ teacher supervision

evidence challenging evolution

0

10

0

amount of biological change

1

9

0

spontaneous generation

0

10

0


As shown in the tables above, students performing a casual search of the internet for information on the lesson topics will more likely be directed to sites with misleading/incorrect information, irrelevant information, or information that is presented at too high a comprehension level for the 10th Grade. This is especially true if students use the creationist jargon with which the lesson plan is liberally sprinkled. While there are sites listed which provide exemplary resources for the different topics (e.g, the AGI/Paleonological Society page on the fossil record; or the PBS series on evolution), these sites should be called out in the body of the lesson plan itself rather than relying on students to find them. Students in introductory Biology classes do not have the background or knowledge to select sites with strong, accurate scientific content from sites which contain inaccurate/ misleading information but use scientific-sounding words and phrases. The Board of Education needs to provide very clear written criteria for both students and teachers as to what constitutes appropriate Internet resources for use in a high school science class. Such resources should present the consensus view of the scientific community, and should have strong editorial policies to assure that each web site’s content is accurate and complete. Appropriate web sites will also have information presented at a comprehension level appropriate for the background and experience of the students accessing them.


As it is currently written, the Critical Analysis Lesson Plan places local school districts at risk of legal action by appearing to advocate the use of creationist information in a scientific context. The Board of Education would be well advised to have this Lesson reviewed by the Attorney General’s office.




Evaluation of Web Sites Recommended in the Lesson Plan

Web Site

Type of Site

Content/Suitability

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/

This is a private site created to memorialize the late Stephen J. Gould

The site makes no claim to the accuracy or completeness of its content; it also presents the viewpoint of only one scientist. It is inappropriate as a reference source.

http://www.arn.org

This site is hosted by the Access Research Network (ARN) and is largely devoted to presentation of the Intelligent Design concept. Two-thirds of the directors, officers, and fellows of ARN hold similar positions with the Discovery Institute. Phillip Johnson’s Wedge Updates for Ohio are archived on this site.

This site promotes Intelligent Design; thus, having it as a recommended resource in the Lesson Plan violates the benchmark indicator which states that, “The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.” It is inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

http://www.objectivityinscience.org

This is a privately-maintained anti-evolution site.

The introduction to the site makes the claim that teaching “the theory of macroevolution... may lead a student to conclude that he or she is in fact the result of random, chance processes, and has not been created or designed for any special purpose. This in turn can have a devastating impact on the student, leading him or her to devalue human life and possibly to engage in drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and violence, or even to commit suicide.”

Most of the content is drawn from creationist or intelligent design sources; it is inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

http://www.origins.org

This is a privately-maintained anti-evolution site.

The site repeats the common creationist arguments against evolution (random, chance processes; all mutations harmful; philosophical materialism drives Biologists; design apparent everywhere). Most of the content is drawn from creationist or intelligent design sources; it is inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

 http://genetics.nbii.gov

This site is maintained by Biological Survey arm of the U.S. Geological Survey.

This site presents recent information on research in genetics from a variety of government, university, and industry sources. It also has good background and introductory material for students and the public. Content of the site is technically reviewed before being posted. It is appropriate for use as a reference source.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html, although a better address to the same material is:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

This is an educational web site run by the University of California, Berkeley to provide comprehensive information to teachers and students on Biological Evolution.

This is a high quality site for educational use. Its content is up-to-date, and is reviewed for technical accuracy and completeness before being posted. It is appropriate for use as a reference source.

http://set.lanl.gov

This site is run by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a research facility operated for the U.S. Department of Energy.

The lesson plan states that this site contains information on the Socratic Method. A search of the site did not turn up any such information. It is inappropriate for the stated usage.










Internet search results based on “Aspect” title in the Lesson Plan (sites listed in order returned by the search engine)

Aspect title (+ evolution)

Sites returned

Type of Site/Suitability

Homology

www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/hobi182.htm

Intelligent Design site; inappropriate.

www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/ Lectures/Lecture5/Overheads.html

This site presents lecture notes for an upper level undergraduate class in biology. Some material is useful, but much is beyond the reach of 10th Graders. Site is appropriate with teacher supervision.

emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/homology.htm

Creationist site; the material is largely inaccurate and does not reflect the current peer-reviewed scientific literature. The site’s content, therefore, does not meet the intent of the benchmark indicator to evaluate how scientists critically examine aspect of evolutionary theory. It is inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

www.alternativescience.com/homology.htm

Creationists site; strong parallels to Wells’ Icons of Evolution. The site’s content, therefore, does not meet the intent of the benchmark indicator to evaluate how scientists critically examine aspect of evolutionary theory. It is inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.htm

Site dedicated to presenting main stream science in the creation/evolution debate. Content is an eclectic mix of topical papers, mostly by degreed professionals. Standards for technical accuracy and editorial content are applied. Some material beyond the reach of 10th graders. Appropriate for some content, but not all; requires teacher approval.

www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/ 1993/biology/bio039.htm

An “Ask the Scientist” site run by Argonne national Laboratory. Minimal content on Homology; however, the site could be useful for students to engage with practicing scientists. Possibly appropriate; requires teacher guidance.

www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=365&cr=5 - 54k

Creationist site; the material is largely inaccurate and does not reflect the current peer-reviewed scientific literature. The site’s content, therefore, does not meet the intent of the benchmark indicator to evaluate how scientists critically examine aspect of evolutionary theory. It is inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11701624

The PubMed search function of the national Center for Biological Information. Intended for researchers, content is far above the level of 10th graders. Inappropriate.

www.biol.sc.edu/~coull_lab/staton/ref/homology.pdf

Pre-print of a paper accepted for publication. Good history of homology; more recent material above the level of 10th graders. Some material appropriate.

honiglab.cpmc.columbia.edu/programs/ jackal/Jackalmanual.pdf

A modeling guide to protein structures; material is far beyond 10th Grade comprehension. Inappropriate.

Fossil record

www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/


and www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf

This is an excellent site presented jointly by the American Geological Institute and the Paleontological Society. It covers all aspects of paleontology. Sponsors of this publication include:

Publishing Partners

Paleontological Research Institution

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

California Science Teachers Association

University of California Museum of Paleontology

Sponsors

American Association of Petroleum Geologists

American Geophysical Union

Geological Society of America

California Academy of Sciences

Supporters

Association for Women Geoscientists

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology)

The Society for Organic Petrology

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

Soil Science Society of America

American Institute of Biological Sciences

Society for the Study of Evolution

Cleveland Museum of Natural History

Denver Museum of Nature and Science


It is an outstanding introduction to the fossil record and should have been included in the Lesson Plan as a recommended site.

www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm

This is a page hosted by the Gulf Coast Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. The author presents abundant information - in highly readable fashion - related to how the fossil record supports the Theory of Evolution. The pages content contains extensive links to the primary scientific literature. The GCSSEPM has a strong editorial policy to assure the accuracy of their pages’ content. This is an appropriate site as a reference source.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Learning.html

This page, “Learning from the Fossil Record”, is a teaching guide and set of lesson plans for middle and high school classes produced by the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley. The quality of the content is high and it provides a comprehensive treatment of the subject. It should have been included in the Lesson Plan as a recommended site. It is an appropriate site as a reference source.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html

This page, part of a larger set of pages by the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley, deals only with the fossil record of Birds. The quality of the content is high and it is age-appropriate. It is an appropriate site as a reference source.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Site dedicated to presenting main stream science in the creation/evolution debate. Content is an eclectic mix of topical papers, mostly by degreed professionals. Standards for technical accuracy and editorial content are applied. Some material beyond the reach of 10th graders. Appropriate for some content, but not all; requires teacher approval.

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3e1eb85629.htm

This page is a discussion forum hosted by FreeRepublic.com, "A Conservative News Forum." Content is not screened for accuracy. Tenth Grade Biology students will not have the background to distinguish accurate from inaccurate statements. Many of the site’s participants are young Earth creationists. Also, the treatment of the fossil record is very “hit or miss.” It is an inappropriate reference source.

www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/humev/

This is a subscription site which will provide 3-D views of skulls and artifacts associated with the evolution of humans from primate ancestors over the past 5-7 million years. Being a subscription site, it is inappropriate as a reference source.

acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/fossrec.htm

This is the site of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club. Its content is drawn mostly from intelligent design and creationist sources, and is mostly inaccurate. The site’s content, therefore, does not meet the intent of the benchmark indicator to evaluate how scientists critically examine aspect of evolutionary theory. It is inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html

Creationist site; the material is largely inaccurate and does not reflect the current peer-reviewed scientific literature. The site’s content, therefore, does not meet the intent of the benchmark indicator to evaluate how scientists critically examine aspect of evolutionary theory. It is inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

Antibiotic resistance

http://www.wileyeurope.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471971057.html

This is an advertisement for a textbook with minimal content. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.wileyeurope.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471971057,descCd-description.html?print=true

This is an advertisement for a textbook with minimal content. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/4/l_104_03.html

This is an outstanding resource with very high quality content, covering the full breadth of the topic at a level understandable by high schoolers. It also contains numerous links to additional quality resources. The producers of the program took great care to ensure the accuracy and currency of the material presented. This web page should have been listed as a recommended site in the Lesson Plan. It is a very appropriate reference source.

http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03441/TermPapers/2000TermPapers/group2/outline.html

This site is provided by Carnegie mellon University and contains a comprehensive, well-referenced discussion of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and other simple organisms. However, specific authorship of the document cannot be determined (it may be a student term paper); nor the level of technical review of its content. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9408b.htm

This is a creationist site promoting Biblical literalism. The identified page contains significant inaccuracies concerning evolutionary mechanisms. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/biosci/CRePE/project2.html

This site is hosted by the Department of Biological Science at the University of Idaho to spotlight current research projects. The information contained summarizes current frontline research into antibiotic resistance but at a level of complexity well above the knowledge level of 10th Graders. It is an inappropriate reference source.

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp

Answers in Genesis is a blatantly creationist site which consistently misrepresents the scientific literature and research findings. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9710667&dopt=Abstract

The PubMed search function of the national Center for Biological Information. Content is summary information only, and intended for researchers, not high schoolers. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://stevens.scripps.edu/publications/86.pdf

This site contains a 2001 paper on predicitng antibiotic resistance that was published in Nature - Structural Biology. The paper’s content is well beyond the knowledge level of 10th Graders. It is an inappropriate reference source.

Peppered moths

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/peppered.htm

This is a creationist page containing minimal content and inaccurate information concerning the peppered moth. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/basics/sld014.htm

This is a creationist page which misrepresents the primary literature concerning the peppered moth. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/4105.asp

Answers in Genesis is a blatantly creationist site which consistently misrepresents the scientific literature and research findings. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-064b.htm

The Institute for Creation Research is a blatantly creationist site which consistently misrepresents the scientific literature and research findings.It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-124b.htm

The Institute for Creation Research is a blatantly creationist site which consistently misrepresents the scientific literature and research findings.It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/moonshine.htm

This site presents an extensive critique of creationist arguments about the peppered moth (including Wells’ Icons of Evolution). There are extensive references to the primary scientific literature on the subject, and to the earliest studies. The content of the TalkDesign site is a mix of topical papers, mostly by degreed professionals. Standards for technical accuracy and editorial content are applied. Some material beyond the reach of 10th graders. Appropriate for some content, but not all; requires teacher approval.

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Elephant%20stuff/Chapters/Ch%2014/Moths/Moth-Update.html

This page, by Brown University Biology professors Miller and Levine, presents a good summary of the “controversy” about historical research into the peppered moth. This summary draws extensively from Majerus, 1998 (Melanism - Evolution in Action, Oxford University Press, New York), a definitive work on the subject. It is an appropriate reference source.

http://www.thinkquest.org/library/site_sum.html?tname=29178&url=29178/pepper.htm

ThinkQuest is a web site of The Oracle Help Us Help Foundation, a non-profit organization set up to provide educational material for home schooling. It is a creationist site, and all links associated with the peppered moth topic lead to creationist web pages. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://clcoc.org/news/peppered.htm

This is a creationist web page published by the Crystal Lake Church of Christ. Information on the peppered moth is drawn exclusively from creationist sources and is largely inaccurate. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal reference source).

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_pepmothshort.htm

The Access Research Network (ARN) is an Intelligent Design promotion site. This page is a discussion of the peppered moth by Rev. Jonathan Wells, and is mostly a repeat of his longer presentation in Icons of Evolution (which has been rejected by the Ohio Board of Education). Wells substantially misrepresents the primary scientific literature on the subject. It is an inappropriate reference source.

Endosymbiosis

http://www.geocities.com/jjmohn/endosymbiosis.htm

This is a private site purporting to summarize current knowledge regarding endosymbiosis. No information could be found about the author, nor the date of this writing. As a private site, there is no editorial policy in place to assure completeness or accuracy of the material presented. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Endosymbiosis.html

This is the on-line version of the college text Biology by retired Harvard University professor, Dr. John W. Kimball. It has received awards for quality by several scientific organizations. Most of the material on endosymbiosis is written well above the knowledge level of 10th graders. It is an inappropriate reference source without teacher approval.

http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/Bacteria/symbiosis.html

This page is an on-line laboratory guide produced by the Sidwell Friends School, a private educational institution in the Washington, D.C. area. The summary material on endosymbiosis, while accurate, does not refer to the primary literature, nor does it discuss current areas of investigation. It is an appropriate reference source for basic information only.

http://www.molevol.de/research/endosymbiosis.html

This page, by the Heinrich Heine Universitat, Dusseldorf, presents a summary discussion of current research into endosymbiosis (it is in English). Beyond the basic introduction, the content is above the level of 10th Grade understanding. The site requires a Flash Player plug-in and may not be compatible with all school computers. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.molevol.de/research/compartmentation.html

This is a continuation of the above listed page. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199602/0084.html

This site is part of an on-line discussion forum of evolution. As an open discussion page, there are no standards applied to assure the completeness and accuracy of any statements. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199602/0086.html

This site is part of an on-line discussion forum of evolution. As an open discussion page, there are no standards applied to assure the completeness and accuracy of any statements. It is an inappropriate reference source.

 http://128.250.102.110/Curr_Op.pdf

This site is a research paper on “Endosymbiosis and evolution of the plant cell” by Geoffrey McFadden, a researcher with the Plant Cell Biology Research Centre, University of Melbourne, Australia. While the content of the paper is high quality, and represents frontline research into the topic of endosymbiosis, it is written at a level of understanding well above the average 10th grader. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~mbi-ws/changethrutime/endosymbiosis.htm

This page presents a comprehensive discussion of endosymbiosis as a component of the Internet Teaching of Microbiology (MBI-699.W), a workshop course conceived and developed by:


    John R. Stevenson, PhD

    Associate Professor

    Department of Microbiology

    Miami University

    Oxford, Ohio 45056 (USA)

The content, while targeted at university undergraduates, should be understandable to most 10th graders. This is a high quality reference source.

http://cis.arl.arizona.edu/PERT/people/Plague/Dale%20et%20al.%202002.pdf.

This is a reprint of a paper published in the Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, entitled, “Type III secretion systems and the evolution of mutualistic endosymbiosis.” While describing frontline research in the topic, the paper’s content is far above the knowledge level of 10th graders. It is an inappropriate reference source.



Internet search results based on specific terminology used in the Lesson Plan (sites listed in order returned by the search engine)


Definition/terminology

Sites returned

Type of Site/Suitability

evidence challenging evolution

http://dmoz.org/Science/Anomalies_and_Alternative_Science/Criticism_of_Darwinism/

dmoz is an “open directory project,” essentially an index to other sites related to specific topics. There is no editorial control over the content of the listed sites. Most of the listed sites are privately owned - expressing a personal philosophy, and a substantial number are creationist in content. Only one site listed (talkorigins.org) has an editorial policy requiring accurate presentation based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.megspace.com/religion/museltof/5index.html

This is a clearly creationist site presenting a Biblical literalist view of the world and challenge to evolution. It is wholly inappropriate (and possibly illegal) as a reference source.

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Lattimer021304.htm

This is a news article from an Intelligent Design site. It contains no specific scientific content. It is inappropriate as a reference source.

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/challengingdarwin092202.htm

This is a news article from an Intelligent Design site. It contains no specific scientific content, but quotes a variety of ID and creationist authors. It is inappropriate as a reference source.

http://home.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/evolution.htm

This is a private site presenting a dissertation including intelligent design and Biblical creationism. It references a number of books by ID and creationist authors, but draws no content from the current scientific literature. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Science_and_Religion/Creation_vs__Evolution/

This is a Yahoo Directory of sites listed under the category of Science and Religion > Creation vs. Evolution. Nearly all listed sites have a strong creationist theme. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785243631/002-6998200-3692815?v=glance

This is a catalog listing for a book related to evangelical Christianity. There is no content on the page related to evolution. It is inappropriate as a reference source.

http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/books_magazines/print_books/refuting_evolution_dr_sarfati/_review/318011/

This is a catalog listing for a book by creationist, Jonathan Sarfati.. There is no content on the page related to evolution. It is inappropriate as a reference source.

http://puffin.creighton.edu/NRCSE/NRCSEPosReID.html

This page is a statement by the Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education opposed to the teaching of intelligent design in Nebraska public schools. It contains no technical content related to the critical analysis of evolution by scientists. It is inappropriate as a reference source.

http://www.mcjonline.com/news/01a/20010222e.shtml

This page contains a news article in the Maranatha Christian Journal regarding the evolution controversy in Kansas. It contains no technical content related to the critical analysis of evolution by scientists. It is inappropriate as a reference source.

amount of biological change

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/bio_1.html

This page is posted by the U.S. EPA to provide information to homeowners about biological pollutants. It has nothing to do with the lesson topics.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/articles/natural_limits.htm

This is a creationist site presenting largely inaccurate information on the Theory of Evolution. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/essays/SMITH86.htm

This is a reprint of a published paper on biogeography. It is nearly 20 years old (does not reflect current research activity); does not relate to the lesson topics; contains material at a comprehension level well beyond the average 10th grader; and posits certain natural conditions that are in conflict with current geological understandings. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.renaissancemag.com/news/121899.asp

This is a news article about demonstrations at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. It is irrelevant to the lesson topics.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy2001/pdf/program.pdf

This is a summary of the FY 2001 budget request by the National Science Foundation for the Biological Sciences. It is irrelevant to the lesson topics.

http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy2003/budget_9.pdf

This is a summary of the FY 2003 budget request by the National Science Foundation for the Biological Sciences. It is irrelevant to the lesson topics.

http://www.collectioncare.org/pubs/v2n2p1.html

This page deals with the conservation and preservation of historical and art objects. It is irrelevant to the lesson topics.

http://www.pwcglobal.com/Extweb/service.nsf/0/0B6BE3A5E031FBA180256C7D0053F283?opendocument

This page is a Price Waterhouse Cooper guide to biological assets for investors. It is irrelevant to the lesson topics.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/february26/aaasklein-226.html

This is a news article from Stanford University concerning recent speculation regarding the onset of creative thinking in Homo sapiens between 100,000 and 50,000 years ago. While the article is interesting and readable, it bears little on the lesson topics. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin1/010222a.asp

This is a news article from the University of Toronto. It briefly discusses the impacts of rapid biological change occurring now on a global scale. It can be useful for contrasting and comparing rapid changes seen in the fossil record. It is an appropriate reference source.

spontaneous generation + evolution

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14880.ctl

This is an advertisement by the University of Chicago press for book recounting the historical debates between Henry Charlton Bastian and Thomas Huxley in the 19th Century regarding spontaneous generation. Neither the article nor the book deal with current topics in evolutionary research. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.origin-of-life.net/

This is a blatantly creationist site which, among other things, considers Darwin’s theory of evolution as the basis for modern cosmologial theory and the theory of nucleosynthesis of elements in supernovae. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.thoemmes.com/science/evolution_rev.htm

This is a copy of a journal article by Michael Ruse on the historical debate regarding evolution and spontaneous generation. While an excellent and readable historical summary, the article does not bear on how biologists currently are researching aspects of evolution. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.thoemmes.com/science/evolution_intro.htm

This is a copy of a journal article by James Strick on the historical debate regarding evolution and spontaneous generation. While a well-written historical summary, the article does not bear on how biologists currently are researching aspects of evolution. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt64.html

This page is hosted by the Roman Theological Forum. It is a philosophical dissertation on theistic evolution, and has no scientific content. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199809/0107.html

This page is part of a discussion forum. It does not reference the current scientific literature, nor does it address the lesson topics. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199810/0035.html

This page is part of a discussion forum. It does not reference the current scientific literature, nor does it address the lesson topics. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://books.mainseek.com/113R14P205432C26K11-Evolution-and-the-Spontaneous-Generation-Debate.html

This is a commercial site offering for sale ($630.00) the history, Evolution and the Spontaneous Generation Debate, by James Strick. The site contains no scientific content and does not address the lesson topics. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.livingcog.org/files/commentary_main.asp

This web page is a religious commentary on love and St. Valentine’s day. It contains no scientific content and does not address the Theory of Evolution. It is an inappropriate reference source.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/dw_origin.asp

Answers in Genesis is a blatantly creationist site which consistently misrepresents the scientific literature and research findings. It is an inappropriate (and possibly illegal) reference source.