Real dope on human evolution

Subtitle this one, “DBQs in prehistory, paleontology, and anthropology.”

Younger son James complained yesterday about . . . well, about stuff he wasn’t taught. His questions to me were about what was available in the history textbooks on the great advances in science in the 20th century.

Very little is available, really. What had set him off was his summer reading where he’s been introduced, for the first time, to particle physics of the past 30 years. History texts may mention Einstein’s letter to FDR which started the Manhattan project. An outstanding history and science student in a U.S. high school can pass through the experience without ever learning what Einstein’s equation, E=mc², actually means, or how it pertains to his letter to Roosevelt, or when and how Einstein came up with it, how Einstein’s papers changed physics, how Einstein’s ideas were tested, how Einstein’s pacifism and Jewish heritage drove him to the U.S., and so on. Great advances in particle physics, or even in practical applications like CAT scans and PET scans, have fallen out of the books and out of the curriculum. 21st century medicine, but 20th century science texts and 19th century history texts. It’s the David-Bartonization of American education.

The stuff wasn’t covered in his AP physics or AP chemistry classes (what’s up with that?!), nor were most of the great discoveries even mentioned in any of the AP history courses.

No wonder the head of the Texas State Board of Education knows so little about science. Cue the country/western version of the story, “Been dumb as a stump so long it looks like genius to me.”** Plus, this makes it clear why the versions of curricula the SBOE head favors must be resisted.

Texas standards and national standards in history ask that students be familiar with American inventions and innovation. In reality that translates to Eli Whitney and the cotton engine, because it’s a key factor in the rise of plantation economics in the South prior to the Civil War; maybe some mention of water-powered looms; Edison and the light bulb; Ford and the assembly line; and maybe a mention of radio or television, usually with regard to the effects on culture. I know a teacher who has a great unit for Texas history on barbed wire and the Colt .45. World history mentions James Watt and the steam engine.* The Wright brothers and the airplane get a couple of sentences. Humans going to the Moon gets a few sentences, but not as much as Sputnik, because, well because Sputnik scared the bejeebers out of some of the people who yelled loudest at Texas and Florida textbook meetings, I imagine.

I’m not going to fix all of that, not right now. It’s a subject that deserves more time in the cooker, I think.

But I’m also working on plans for this next year. Pre-history human migrations, geological development of the planet — and last night I discovered a group hitting the Bathtub for information about humans and evolution. Sheesh! Another place where the history and science texts short the glorious science, where a student is more likely to be struck by lightning waiting for the bus than to get decent coverage of human evolution in the classroom. (Hey. Do you know a teacher who covers human evolution well in any subject? Put it in comments, below — I want to congratulate her, or him. I also want to steal the lesson plans.)

Here’s a quick fix, using some seminal documents that are perfectly classroom usable: Go to the Nature magazine website, and specifically look for the section, “focus on human origins.” If your administrators aren’t fully versed on No Child Left Behind, you can claim these as “research-based” (they are purely research-based; the law asks that our pedagogical methods be research-based, though, not the content, and that’s impossible; most of what we do in the classroom is tradition-based unsupported by any significant research, and federal laws and state regulations generally require the opposite of what the research says . . . don’t get me started). But I digress.

Nature is one of the premier science journals, a peer-reviewed or juried journal that is the prime place for key research findings to be published (along with Science, the other science journal giant). Most of their material is hidden away on the internet, held in proprietary sites available to scientists whose research institutions spring for expensive subscriptions (no, these journals are generally NOT available through the databases most high schools and non-research colleges purchase). Much of the best research of the last century is unavailable to high school teachers or students. This is true of chemistry, physics, biology and geology. The textbooks tend to obfuscate and cover the stuff up — or in the case of particle physics, ignore the field.

Several years ago Nature pulled about a dozen of the seminal papers in human evolution studies out of their vaults, making them available for free. These papers include some of the real classics:

Frankly, I wouldn’t expect to see these in a real DBQ in anything except, perhaps, human geography — but I can dream, can’t I? You can certainly create outstanding DBQ exercises with exerpts from these and a few other sources. Or you can simply use these complete papers in your classes. Except for a select few debate students at the upper echelons of competitiveness, real research papers fall out of the curriculum, and it’s a shame.

There is drama in these papers. Some of them shake the Earth, but in coolly scientific words. Ironically, the papers are not written so technically that they are beyond the ken of most high school readers. These papers are real history, real science, and our students deserve to read them.

Nature deserves our thanks for making these papers available. I wish other seminal papers were available, from Nature, and from other science and history research journals. Students would benefit from reading real history about the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the development of public health to fight tuberculosis. Students could mightily use to read about physics, biology, meteorology, geology, and other sciences upon which we rely to save the human race.


* James Rowland of Woodlands High School in the Conroe Independent School District led a group of us teachers in an exercise last week at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, asking the question about who invented the steam engine and when. With six different AP or advanced world history texts, we came up with eight different answers, including two different years given for Watt’s work.

** Yes, from Richard Fariña’s 1966 novel, Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up to Me (finished two days before his fatal motorcycle accident), and the song (pay no attention to the Lee Hazelwood-Nancy Sinatra song, but remember the Doors’s version is probably unsuitable for classroom use).


3 Responses to Real dope on human evolution

  1. […] Darrell: Here’s the  Real dope on human evolution because school doesn’t teach us everything. […]


  2. zhoen says:

    Long ago, in catholic school, lay teachers covered the history of science along with the science. Taught as stories, making it personal and approachable. I begin to realize just how many really great teachers I had. Because it is the stories we remember.

    Von Leeuwenhoek and his animalcules (Sophomores in high school reading aloud a third grade filmstrip), and memorizing ‘ontology recapitulates phylogeny’ – even as Shirkey presented it as a somewhat mistaken theory.

    Just as I had a college anatomy teacher who tagged turtles in the summer, and came back with tales as well as explanations about why our nervous anatomy seemed so odd, because of how turtles are enervated.

    Bible stories got nothing on the real ones, if only we tell them well.


  3. flatlander100 says:

    Good post, and dead on accurate. Generally, college students as well won’t much come into contact with the history of science and technology unless (a) they take a specific course in them, and relatively few do, or (b) they are science majors in which case they will generally become familiar with the history of their own particular branch [physics, chemistry, etc].

    Part of the problem is a kind of turf and time war in history classes. There is so much to cover, in so little time, and the focus of the standardized tests is so heavily on political, social and economic history, that there is great reluctance to give up time or topic to yet another facet of history [however important] that isn’t going to show up on the standardized tests.

    Another problem is the nation-centric nature of the way we teach history. Note the standards emphasis on American inventions. Advances in technology, and in basic science, that are not demonstrably American in orgin [you mentioned the key ones: cotton gin, telephone, light bulb, atomic bomb] are deemed not relevant to the main course focus.

    Good post. Important topic.


Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: