|“Utah SEEd” / NGSS April 2015 Draft - Standards That Are Concerns, grades 6 – 8|
|As we have seen from "Utah NGSS Side By Side" the Utah SEEd standards are not as USOE claims from “primarily Utah science educators,” a Utah grown, Utah values product, but it is in word and Character NGSS, a national science standard, of materialistic values, which our USOE officials promised they would no adopt?|
|Environmental Related Potential Concerns (Green Background)|
|Darwinian Evolution Related Potential Concerns (Salmon Background)|
|Potential both Environmental and Darwinian Evolution Related Potential Concerns (Blue Background)|
|Concerning details are often found at the NGSS link|
|Utah #||NGSS Cross||Why Item Is a Potential Issue|
|Utah Root Question 1: How does energy affect the structure and behavior of matter?|
We question the motivation for Performance Standard 6.1.5:
Define the criteria and constraints of a design problem with sufficient precision to ensure a successful solution, taking into account relevant scientific principles and potential impacts on people and the natural environment that may limit possible solutions.Further concern is raised when we read the supporting material from NGSS under cross cutting concepts:
Influence of Science, Engineering, and Technology on Society and the Natural WorldPerformance Standards such as these have no business being in a middle school science classes. The only reason why one would want something like this included in a science curriculum of such young minds is to serve as a tool for indoctrination.
|Utah Root Question 2: How do energy and matter move in patterns that affect Earth’s weather and climate?|
|6.2.4||MS-ESS3-5.||The NGSS takes a very biased and dogmatic view of Global Warming. The NGSS Clarification Statement to what Utah calls Performance Expectation 6.2.4 states the “[e]mphasis is on the major role that human activities play in causing the rise in global temperatures.” There is significant dissent about whether the very slight warming trend that appears to have been observed is in any significant way is connected to man's actions. With evidence of deception and distortion of the data and further investigations about such corruption, it is not an appropriate topic in my mind for middle school students.|
|Utah Root Question 3: How does the availability of energy and matter affect stability and change in ecosystems?|
This set of standards under the heading of “Root Question 3” is
implemented in the NGSS as a tool to introduce more politicized
environmental concerns, and present young sixth grade minds to such
Utah 6.3.5Performance Standards such as these have no business being in a middle school science class. The only reason why one would want something like this included in a science curriculum of such young minds is to serve as a tool for indoctrination.
|Utah Root Question 4: How can the use of matter and energy affect Earth’s systems?|
|6.4.1||MS-ESS3-3.||Again, Performance Standards such as:
"Utah SEEd" / NGSS 6.4.3
Construct an argument supported by evidence for how increases in human population and per-capita consumption of natural resources impact Earth's systems.
[Clarification Statement: Examples of evidence include … data bases on human populations and the rates of consumption of food and natural resources (such as freshwater, mineral, and energy). Examples of impacts can include changes to the appearance, composition, and structure of Earth’s systems as well as the rates at which they change. The consequences of increases in human populations and consumption of natural resources are described by science, but science does not make the decisions for the actions society takes.]
are not the type issues which we should task a middle school student with.
If this is what my sixth grade science looked like, I think I would hate it. Depending on the teacher and their tack on such issues, a young mind could easily begin to hate humanity as well.
|Utah #||NGSS Cross||Why Item Is a Potential Issue|
|Utah Root Question 1:How does the structure and behaviors of an organism affect its ability to grow, survive, and reproduce?|
This set of performance standards is not intrinsically an issue, except in the frame work of the claimed materialistic “molecules to man” paradigm. Science has not demonstrated a “molecules to man” or for that matter “molecules to organisims”scenario such as is cast by the “Utah SEEd” / NGSS standards. For example:
Utah / NGSS 7.1.4The emergence of a different protein from minor variations of other existing proteins may explain some of the diversity we see in life. However, it has been found that the normally assumed mutation / natural selection mechanism is an insufficient explanation for a significant portion of the proteins and the genes that code for those proteins. An article available in Trends in Genetics 2009 reported report that “10-20% of genes lack recognizable homologs in other species.”(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19716618 ). In other words 10 – 20% of genes in species don't have evidence of ancestry. This is further discussed in an article available in Nature Reviews Genetics 2011 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=The+evolutionary+origin+of+orphan+genes%2C+Nature+Reviews). It said,
[E]very evolutionary lineage harbors orphan genes that lack homologues in other lineages and whose evolutionary origin is only poorly understood. Orphan genes might arise from duplication and rearrangement processes followed by fast divergence; however, de novo evolution out of non-coding genomic regions is emerging as an important additional mechanism.This sudden appearance of genetic material by “de novo” or out of nothing lacks credibility in the light of several other studies. In the journal Nature in 2012 it was reported that the ENCODE Project revealed that by their analysis, 80 percent of the human genome has a “biochemical function” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11247.html). The lead researcher also expressed his thoughts that this percentage of functionality could move to a statistical 100 percent. This level of functionality in a genome removes most all of the opportunity for non coding regions of the cell to be the incubators for the “de novo” or out of nothing sudden emergence of proteins.
Further, Douglas Axe reported his studies in 2004 in the journal Science Direct, of the challenges of random mutations being responsible for the origins functional protein folding (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624). According to Axe's experiments “the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77.” For a comparison of that number, there are believed to be 10^80 sub atomic particles in the entire Universe. Hence, relying on random processes to beget “de novo” proteins is out of the realm of statistical possibility regardless of the billion of years that one could imagine.
Darwin said that:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ [or in this case protein] existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
I am not saying that we should not teach evolution in our schools. What I am saying is that we should teach the evidence for and also the evidence against the theory.
|Utah Root Question 2: What patterns can be observed as evidence to support changes in species over time?|
This section is full of bias, dogmatic statements and even bad science.
Performance standards 7.2.1 & 7.2.4 should consider both pro and con evidence. The fossil record does not show the gradual branching tree that is usually shown in our science classes. When considering actual fossil data, the animal phyla or the basic body plans of life, 23 are living today (and are in the fossil record). The Cambrian is the first real "blossoming of life." In just the Cambrian environment, according to main stream science reports, there existed 23 animal phyla. Furthermore, there was not significant variation from that number at any time in the fossil record according to reports.
When the Cambrian fossils in southern China, near the town of Chengjiang, were discovered there was discussions that the number of basic body plans (the phyla) must be over 100. This uncomfortable number was whittled down by expanding the definition of some phyla and regrouping to avoid an even more embarrassing comparison than what we have today. Even with the regrouping etc. the numbers show that the fossil record does not support the gradual branching pattern of Darwin’s Tree of Life.
Furthermore, even vertebrate fish were found in the Cambrian environment.
"The so-called basic law of biogenetics [Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny] is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form, making it valid in a certain percentage. It is totally wrong." Click for Link
|Utah Root Question 3: How does the cycling of matter and energy affect Earth's evolution over time?|
The complete "Geologic Column" does not exist anywhere on Earth.
BUILT BY CORRELATION, L. Don Leet (Harvard) & Sheldon Judson (Princeton), "Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the Latin for 'together' plus 'relate.'"
Putman & Bassett, "A rock that had an early form of an organism was clearly older than rocks containing later forms. Furthermore, all rocks that had the early form, no matter how far apart those rocks were geographically, would have to be the same age … fossil successions made it possible to say that the Cambrian rocks are older than the Ordovician rocks. In this way our geologic time table came into being....Without the theory of evolution and the interdisciplinary science of paleontology, it could not exist."
Our Students should also know this about the "Geologic Column" which also shows the circularity of reasoning in its origin.
|Utah Root Question 4: How does gravity influence the structure, organization, and motion of objects in space?|
|Utah Root Question 5: How do forces interact with matter?|
|Utah #||NGSS Cross||Why Item Is a Potential Issue|
|Utah Root Question 1: How do matter and energy interact to form the physical world?|
Utah Root Question 1 is an issue.
Science has not produced a cohesive "molecules to organisms," or a "molecules to our physical world" narrative that holds up to scientific scrutiny. There are many areas where material forces have been shown to be insufficient mechanisms for the origination of life, the origin of proteins, the origin of DNA, the origin of stars, the origin of planets within a solar system, etc.
Such a statement is a statement of philosophy, a materialistic philosophy, not a statement of science, and it does not belong in the science classroom.
8.1.3 & 8.1.4
These appear to be directed more as more of social questions than science questions or even engineering questions. Use our students science time for science not social engineering.
|Utah Root Question 2: How is energy stored and transferred in physical systems?|
|Utah Root Question 3: How is energy carried in waves?|
|Utah Root Question 4: How do humans respond to and interact with Earth?|
The “Utah SEEd” / NGSS performance standard 8.4.1 states:
Construct a scientific explanation based on evidence for how the uneven distributions of Earth's mineral, energy, and groundwater resources are the result of past and current geoscience processes.
I think that the word "geoscience" is an error copied from the NGSS. I think it should read geologic processes.
But further and more importantly, given the demonstrated propensity for the writers of these standards to digress into social issues and not stick with science, this appears to be a spring board into social arguments of inequalities between nations in natural resources and injustices of non normalized resources between nations.
These standards are also delving into these social issues these are not appropriate science topics – certainly not for eighth grade.
|Utah Root Question 5: How are living things organized?|
|Utah Root Question 6: How is life maintained?|