ANALYSIS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT ALABAMA COURSE OF STUDY:SCIENCE, 2014
Sections reviewed: Preface, Earth and Space Science (Earth Systems); Biology
Scott Brande, PhD
Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy, Alabama Academy of Science sbrande@uab.edu
30 January 2015
Submitted online by instruction of the Executive Committee, Alabama Academy of Science
FRONT MATTER, p. 8, Nature of Science
See statements on the incorrect characterization of science as “speculative ideas” (below).
FRONT MATTER: PREFACE
The inclusion of a statement in paragraph three about scientific “theories” includes faulty descriptions – a scientific theory is not a “speculative” idea or plan. Scientific theories in textbooks from which students learn the state of current understanding are those currently accepted by the community of scientific experts. So it is wrong for the Preface to cast doubt on “scientific theories” in general simply because scientific theories undergo change. Of course this wording is not an unbiased statement that simply promotes a fundamental understanding of how modern science works. Rather, it is a vestige of anti-evolution language copied word for word from the Prefaces in both the Courses of Study:Science adopted in 2001 and 2005.
Author(s) of the Preface are to be commended for the inclusion of Darwin in the list of great scientists
(Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein) whose insight helped to construct our scientific understanding of the universe today (paragraph four).
Paragraph five addresses the scientific theory of evolution. This paragraph is faulty in the following ways.
1) Why is the scientific theory of evolution the only scientific theory to be addressed here? Of course it is not because all scientific theories are suspect – only evolution is noted because it is the primary target of anti-evolution criticism.
2) The Preface notes that students should “wrestle with unanswered questions and unresolved problems still faced by evolutionary theory”. There are still many “unanswered questions and unresolved problems” still faced by quantum physics – for example, is the Higgs boson the only subatomic particle that explains the existence of mass? Why has evolution been singled out for special mention that identifies evolution as being incomplete? All scientific theories are incomplete. Of course the answer is that evolution is primarily the only scientific theory targeted by anti-evolution groups and individuals because they believe it intrudes on their personal religious understandings.

Executive Committee, Alabama Academy of Science Page 2
3) Although the Preface allows that “natural selection” is an accepted explanation of “small changes” that may be “directly observed”, “large changes” in evolution are implied as uncertain because they have not been “directly observed”, and therefore may not be extrapolated from “small changes” for which natural selection is an accepted mechanism. This logic is constructed to cast doubt on the possibility that an accepted fundamental mechanism of evolution, natural selection, can result, over a longer period of time, in the formation of distinct biological species. This reasoning is logically and factually wrong, and has been extensively written about in the scientific literature for several decades.
Again this anti-evolution wording is inherited from the 2001 Preface.
4) In 2001, the Board of Education was informed during hearings on the draft Course of Study:Science that the authors of the 2001 Preface lacked domain expertise in various fields of science, specifically archaeology and paleontology, and that this lack of expertise resulted in an embarrassing (at least to informed scientists) expression of scientific ignorance that is repeated in the 2014 Preface. “…it is assumed, based on the study of artifacts [sic], that it [natural selection] produces large changes…” [in a population of organisms]. Natural selection is a biological process and phenomenon that acts on living organisms, and that results in evolutionary change within biological populations. “Artifacts” are material objects created by mankind – for example, an arrowhead or a fragment of a clay pot. Artifacts are not members, or the remains of, biological populations. Artifacts are not subject to natural selection.
Artifacts do not evolve. Artifacts are the subject of archaeology. The confusion of “artifact” with the intended target, “fossils” (the remains of once living organisms), demonstrates how such a level of scientific ignorance leads to errors of fact and understanding that easily results in derision and despair in the scientifically educated community of experts. How are our students and teachers to learn “good” science when the leadership of the Alabama Course of Study:Science makes such elementary mistakes because of ignorance in understanding basic facts of science?
Paragraph six is also inherited largely from the 2001 and 2005 Prefaces, some text of which was then transformed and enlarged into the infamous Alabama “disclaimer” (or “sticker”) inserted into biology textbooks after 2001. Alabama’s infamous “sticker” language was then adapted and used in similar statements in other states, for example Oklahoma and Cobb County (Georgia). Little discussion needs to be repeated here about the motivation for the language in this paragraph.
In summary, the Preface is an odd mixture of the old and the new – and the “old” language of antievolution rhetoric and factual errors inherited from previous editions should have gone “extinct” long ago. Now the Board of Education has an opportunity to direct the committee responsible for the Course of Study:Science to eliminate these politically motivated intrusions and refine the Course of
Study:Science into the native gold our children rightly deserve.
Comments on 2014 Alabama Draft Course of Study:Science
Submitted online by S. Brande, Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy

Executive Committee, Alabama Academy of Science Page 3
EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE
Grades 9-12 Overview
Grade Band Overview
Grade Narrative
This narrative recognizes earth and space science as interdisciplinary, in line with the views of the NRC report. Three disciplinary core ideas in the NRC report have been copied to the “STRUCTURE OF THE
STANDARDS” - “ESS1: Earth’s Place in the Universe”, “ESS2: Earth’s Systems”, and “ESS3: Earth and
Human Activity”. It is curious, and unclear, why the Course of Study:Science committee describes the foundation of an Earth and Space Science course “…taken from two disciplinary core ideas in the Earth and Space Science domain”. This omission of the third of NRC’s core ideas, “ESS3 Earth and Human
Activity” from the narrative thus creates a conflict in content between the STRUCTURE OF THE
STANDARDS and the ESS Narrative. This omission is even more puzzling as it is the connector between the planet and its ability to support modern human civilization, because, for example, of our extreme dependence on mining natural resources (e.g., coal and limestone in Alabama), the need for recycling of waste (e.g., metals), and our increasing global footprint on the environment (e.g., deforestation and habitat destruction), all critical issues in need of the creativity and drive of future scientists.
Grade Standards
ESS STANDARD 8
As written, this standard refers to relative time (with examples), but completely omits “numerical” (or, as it is sometimes referred to, “absolute”) time. In any standard earth science textbook, geologic time is always classified into these two types. Numerical time methods were first developed primarily in the earliest 1900s after the discovery and understanding of the phenomenon of radioactive decay. The lack of “numerical” time in this standard places students in a position of intellectual understanding no more recent than about 1900. Although “isotopic ratios” were developed as numerical methods for documenting the passage of “absolute” time in the radioactive isotopes of elements, its use here seems connected only to “relative” time. Numerical ages obtained from radioisotope age dating constitute the fundamental and only data that document the passage of time in years during history of the planet and all its activity (geological and biological), and of material from off the Earth, including rock samples from the Moon, and meteorites from Mars and the asteroid belt of the solar system.
Much has been learned during the last several decades about the process of planet formation from solar nebula. No Earth and Space Science textbook omits discussion of this process. This topic should be added to the example list for discussion.
HOW STANDARD 8 COULD BE RE-WRITTEN TO CORRECT THESE ERRORS.
Comments on 2014 Alabama Draft Course of Study:Science
Submitted online by S. Brande, Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy

Executive Committee, Alabama Academy of Science Page 4
Develop a time scale model of Earth’s biological and geological history to establish relative and numerical ages of major events in Earth’s history (e.g., age of the earth and moon, isotopic ratios, models of geologic cross sections, sedimentary layering, fossilization, early life forms, folding, faulting, igneous intrusions).
ESS STANDARD 9
The intent of Standard 9 is for students to understand how constructive and destructive processes result in the formation of various landforms. Good. However, some minor re-wording would help to clarify what the student is supposed to do.
HOW STANDARD 9 COULD BE RE-WRITTEN FOR CLARIFICATION.
Obtain, evaluate, and communicate information to explain how various land features, including mountains, valleys, and plateaus; and seafloor features, including trenches, ridges, and seamounts; are developed and result from both constructive and destructive forces (e.g., weathering, erosion, volcanism, orogeny, plate tectonics, tectonic uplift).
ESS STANDARD 10
The listing of properties “e.g., luster, hardness, special properties” is incorrectly identified as
“…characteristics of …rocks”. Authors of this standard apparently read about properties of minerals, among which are luster, hardness, and special properties. These terms are not applied to rocks. The great diversity of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks requires three different vocabularies of characteristics and properties.
The intent of the standard is to have students understand how various rocks in Earth’s crust are transformed. This is an essential component of the rock cycle, a part of the dynamic earth throughout its history. For example, sedimentary rocks that are buried and heated may be transformed into metamorphic rocks. Any type of rock may be heated beyond the melting temperature of its minerals to produce magma underground. And when the magma cools and crystallizes, igneous rock forms. The standard, as written, does not clearly or accurately express these concepts.
HOW STANDARD 10 COULD BE RE-WRITTEN TO CORRECT THESE ERRORS.
Explain from evidence how solid matter of Earth’s crust is transformed during the rock cycle, including composition and characteristics of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks (e.g., deposition, burial, heating, compression, intrusion or extrusion).
ESS STANDARD 14
This is an important topic. Students should understand that the movement of energy controls many features of our planet. However, the inclusion of “biosphere distribution” in the example list is odd because, for example, whether the interior of North America is covered by grass or forest is not the reason for the amount of rainfall precipitation. Rather, it’s the other way round – the amount of rainfall
Comments on 2014 Alabama Draft Course of Study:Science
Submitted online by S. Brande, Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy

Executive Committee, Alabama Academy of Science Page 5 precipitation, the climate, controls what type of biological community can survive the physical conditions.
HOW STANDARD 14 COULD BE RE-WRITTEN TO CORRECT THIS ERROR.
Remove “biosphere distribution” from the example list in this standard.
Construct explanations from evidence to describe how changes in the flow of energy through Earth’s systems impact the climate (e.g., volcanic eruptions, solar output, ocean circulation, surface temperatures, precipitation patterns, glacial ice volumes, sea levels, Coriolis effect).
OVERALL EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE COURSE OF STUDY
The ESS narrative omits core idea “ESS3: Earth and Human Activity” (NRC report, and “STRUCTURE OF
THE STANDARDS”). In the NRC report, ESS3 includes four sections: A:Natural Resources, B:Natural
Hazards, C:Human Impacts on Earth Systems, and D:Global Climate Change.
A detailed examination of the content of both the NRC report ESS3 and standards 1-15 reveals that no items related to ESS3.A Natural Resources, or ESS3.C Human Impacts on Earth Systems can be identified in standards 1-15. ESS3.B Natural Hazards is a component of only in standards 11 (primarily regional earthquakes and sinkholes), and 15 (primarily severe weather and storms). And ESS3.D Global Climate
Change is a component of standard 14 (but only with respect to natural phenomena, as there is no reference to any effects of mankind’s activities on global climate).
Without explanation from the Course of Study:Science committee, the reasoning behind these omissions and inconsistencies can only be hypothesized. Perhaps the committee felt the need to keep the total number of standards manageable in Earth and Space Science, and so they omitted the third
NRC core but retained the content of ESS3 within existing standards. The number of proposed standards in Earth and Space Science is 15; in chemistry, 15; in biology, 18; in environmental science, 20. This strategy would make sense so long as those items in ESS3 were incorporated and merged into the proposed standards (1-15). However, with the few exceptions noted above, critical issues of ESS3 Earth and Human Activity are absent from standards 1-15.
Some of these issues missing from the Earth and Space Science standards are treated (in varying detail) in the Environmental Science standards. However, if the committee’s idea was to partition a part of the
NRC Earth and Space Science core idea 3 into the Environmental Science standards, the committee would then be in conflict with the “STRUCTURE OF THE STANDARDS” where ESS3 is explicitly located.
In addition, by the partitioning of ESS3 from ESS and including a portion of in the Environmental Science course, students would be given an incomplete treatment in Earth and Space Science, and thus be unable to make the connections to human impacts on earth systems as articulated by the NRC report.
Finally, a partitioning strategy is doomed to failure for some unknown fraction of those students who do not take both Earth and Space Science and Environmental Science because only by taking both courses would students receive instruction that completes the three disciplinary core ideas recognized by the
Comments on 2014 Alabama Draft Course of Study:Science
Submitted online by S. Brande, Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy

Executive Committee, Alabama Academy of Science Page 6
NRC report. After all, the draft Course of Study:Science notes that Earth and Space Science is “highly recommended”, whereas Environmental Science is not so described.
Another possible explanation for the omission of almost all of ESS3 in the Alabama Earth and Space
Science standards is that the Alabama Course of Study:Science committee deliberately omitted ESS3
Earth and Human Activity from the ESS standards for reasons other than those specified above. Perhaps the committee believes that the human species has not, and does not, significantly impact earth systems, and so omitted the NRC ESS3 topic because of a difference of opinion as to its importance. If so, this view is at variance with the global community of scientific experts.
The committee’s omission is especially troubling, especially given the global scientific community’s consensus opinion that human impacts on global systems are significant and increasing, and that these impacts are, and will continue to change the world our children will live in during their lifetimes.
Finally, it is curious that the Earth and Space Science standards are written completely without explicit reference to humans as inhabitants of planet earth, or even as causative agents of change. “Fossils”,
“life”, “biological”, and “biosphere” are, in fact, the only specific terms used to designate that planet earth has been, and is, inhabited by organisms. Very curious indeed. The implied characterization of earth in the ESS standards is one of a complex system, the action of which is determined solely or largely by such physical forces as energy flow from the sun and internal heat, and orbital mechanics. Such a view harks back 400 years to Isaac Newton, who believed in a system of mechanical forces that determined the operation of earth, and the universe. This mischaracterization of earth as a benign, machine-like system seems remote and disconnected with the stated goal in the narrative of encouraging students to pursue careers in STEM fields. For what purpose, then? To mitigate future change for the betterment of mankind, during the lifetimes of the very students guided by this course of study in science? If so, the omission of the human species as a critical causative agent of global change in the operation of physical, chemical, and biological earth systems will leave students without instructional guidance and intellectual connections.
NRC ESS3 should be incorporated into the Narrative. A few additional standards that represent the most important parts of ESS3 should be added to the ESS draft standards. Corrections to draft standards identified above should be made.
BIOLOGY
BIOLOGY NARRATIVE
Suffice it to say that the committee for the Course of Study:Science remains influenced by anti-evolution forces. The extent of this influence is illustrated by the committee’s decision to adopt the broad organizational framework and language of the NRC report for the Life Sciences, but with only one specific omission. Four core ideas form the NRC’s Life Science framework: LS1 through LS4. These four core ideas are mostly incorporated into the STRUCTURE OF THE STANDARDS document, the Biology
Comments on 2014 Alabama Draft Course of Study:Science
Submitted online by S. Brande, Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy

Executive Committee, Alabama Academy of Science Page 7
Grade Band Overview, Narrative, and standards. The one altered core idea is LS4, titled in the NRC report as “LS4:Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity”, but titled in the Alabama documents only as
“LS4: Unity and Diversity”. The omission of “Biological Evolution” is deliberate and consistent with
Alabama’s history of anti-evolution pressure coming from members of the Board of Education, the State
Textbook Committee, the committee for the Courses of Study:Science, and the public.
BIOLOGY STANDARD 16
“…changes in populations over time” is the euphemism for “evolution”. This substitution no longer fools anyone. It is a code word standing for the influence of anti-evolution supporters. The peppered moth remains a popular example in biology textbooks of the rapid effectiveness of natural selection in altering population gene frequencies and phenotypes. However, because the peppered moth has been a lightning rod for criticism by anti-evolution supporters, other examples should be included in this list.
HOW BIOLOGY STANDARD 16 COULD BE RE-WRITTEN TO CORRECT ERRORS
Include additional examples, such as Darwin’s finches, development of pesticide and antibiotic resistance in bacteria, etc.
Analyze and interpret data to evaluate adaptations that may result from natural selection and may cause changes in populations over time (e.g., peppered moth; Darwin’s finches; development of pesticide and antibiotic resistance in bacteria).
BIOLOGY STANDARD 18
This standard uses the euphemism “change over time” for “evolution”. The wording “…support claims…” suggests that what scientists “claim” is controversial. Examples of evidence for common ancestry and biological evolution are legion, and confirmed: birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs that evolved feathers and many other derived features; blind fish that live in the darkness of caves are descendants of fish with eyes that live in lighted environments; skeletal homologies among the vertebrates predict an evolutionary sequence that is consistent with the sequential appearance of vertebrate fossils in the sedimentary rock record.
HOW BIOLOGY STANDARD 18 COULD BE RE-WRITTEN TO CORRECT ERRORS
Describe and analyze scientific evidence (e.g., deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA], fossils, cladograms) to evaluate hypotheses of common ancestry and biological evolution.
OVERALL BIOLOGY COURSE OF STUDY
Science education in Alabama continues to draw negative press from national quarters due to the long history of anti-evolution activity that, for example, produced our infamous biology textbook “sticker”, and the promotion of the “Panda” book (which thankfully was withdrawn by the publisher prior to what would have been a vote against adoption by the State Textbook Committee). “Evolution”, the dreaded
Comments on 2014 Alabama Draft Course of Study:Science
Submitted online by S. Brande, Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy

Executive Committee, Alabama Academy of Science Page 8
“e-word”, was last included in the Alabama Course of Study:Science adopted in 1977 and used until removed in 1983 by the State Board of Education. “Evolution” has not seen the light of day in any science standards of the Alabama Course of Study:Science since then. Euphemistic use of “change over time” for evolution is evidence for the plain-as-day motivations and influences of anti-evolution supporters. The time has long since passed for the State Board of Education and the Course of
Study:Science committee to explicitly recognize in name one of the most powerful of scientific theories today. “Evolution” should be restored to its rightful place in the education standards of Alabama’s
Course of Study:Science.
Comments on 2014 Alabama Draft Course of Study:Science
Submitted online by S. Brande, Chair, Committee on Science and Public Policy