Questions

Questions about the Reading:

• What are the two kinds of proficiency Aristotle mentions in regard to the sciences?
• What kind of proficiency is reasonable for an ordinary educated man to have?
• Who is the kind of person to whom we ascribe "universal education"?
• What are the two approaches one could take towards discussing separate species?
• Which one does he think is better? Why?
• What examples does he use of ways to distinguish animals from other things? (example: sleep....)

Paste the answers (copy from the text) into your Science Page.

DO:

Quia -- Animal Classifications (should be easy review....)
Animal Classification (another easy one)
One more simple quiz just to test Latin root knowledge -- scientific names for animals

Lesson 4 -- History of Biology

Aristotle was one of the first scientists to write about biology. He lived in the 4th century BC.

This is from his work On The Parts of Animals. Read it -- I hope you can understand most of it. It's OK if you don't understand every word since it's college level reading.

Every systematic science, the humblest and the noblest alike, seems to admit of two distinct kinds of proficiency; one of which may be properly called scientific knowledge of the subject, while the other is a kind of educational acquaintance with it. For an educated man should be able to form a fair off-hand judgment as to the goodness or badness of the method used by a professor in his exposition. To be educated is in fact to be able to do this; and even the man of universal education we deem to be such in virtue of his having this ability.

It will, however, of course, be understood that we only ascribe universal education to one who in his own individual person is thus critical in all or nearly all branches of knowledge, and not to one who has a like ability merely in some special subject. For it is possible for a man to have this competence in some one branch of knowledge without having it in all.

It is plain then that, as in other sciences, so in that which inquires into nature, there must be certain canons, by reference to which a hearer shall be able to criticize the method of a professed exposition, quite independently of the question whether the statements made be true or false. Ought we, for instance (to give an illustration of what I mean), to begin by discussing each separate species-man, lion, ox, and the like-taking each kind in hand inde. pendently of the rest, or ought we rather to deal first with the attributes which they have in common in virtue of some common element of their nature, and proceed from this as a basis for the consideration of them separately?

For genera that are quite distinct yet oftentimes present many identical phenomena, sleep, for instance, respiration, growth, decay, death, and other similar affections and conditions, which may be passed over for the present, as we are not yet prepared to treat of them with clearness and precision.

Now it is plain that if we deal with each species independently of the rest, we shall frequently be obliged to repeat the same statements over and over again; for horse and dog and man present, each and all, every one of the phenomena just enumerated. A discussion therefore of the attributes of each such species separately would necessarily involve frequent repetitions as to characters, themselves identical but recurring in animals specifically distinct. (Very possibly also there may be other characters which, though they present specific differences, yet come under one and the same category. For instance, flying, swimming, walking, creeping, are plainly specifically distinct, but yet are all forms of animal progression.)

Go on to NEXT SECTION

Biology Review #1

Review Questions:

• According to the author, upon what theories is modern biology based?
• Who first named cells? What is cell theory?
• What does DNA carry?
• What are two laws of Thermodynamics?
• The material universe is said to consist of which two things?
• What are the reasons for the controversy over evolution, in the author's opinion?

DO this quiz on the scientific method. If you want, you can read the reading linked below it to help you with the quiz.

How Biology Came About

Theories Contributing to Modern Biology | here

Modern biology is based on several great ideas, or theories:

1. The Cell Theory
2. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
3. Gene Theory
4. Homeostasis

Robert Hooke (1635-1703), one of the first scientists to use a microscope to examine pond water, cork and other things, referred to the cavities he saw in cork as cells, Latin for chambers. Mattias Schleiden (in 1838) concluded all plant tissues consisted of cells. In 1839, Theodore Schwann came to a similar conclusion for animal tissues. Rudolf Virchow, in 1858, combined the two ideas and added that all cells come from pre-existing cells, formulating the Cell Theory. Thus there is a chain-of-existence extending from your cells back to the earliest cells, over 3.5 billion years ago. The cell theory states that all organisms are composed of one or more cells, and that those cells have arisen from pre-existing cells.

In 1953, American scientist James Watson and British scientist Francis Crick developed the model for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a chemical that had (then) recently been deduced to be the physical carrier of inheritance. Crick hypothesized the mechanism for DNA replication and further linked DNA to proteins, an idea since referred to as the central dogma. Information from DNA "language" is converted into RNA (ribonucleic acid) "language" and then to the "language" of proteins. The central dogma explains the influence of heredity (DNA) on the organism (proteins).

Homeostasis is the maintainence of a dynamic range of conditions within which the organism can function. Temperature, pH, and energy are major components of this concept. Theromodynamics is a field of study that covers the laws governing energy transfers, and thus the basis for life on earth. Two major laws are known: the conservation of matter and energy, and entropy. These will be discussed in more detail in a later chapter. The universe is composed of two things: matter (atoms, etc.) and energy.

These first three theories are very accepted by scientists and the general public. The theory of evolution is well accepted by scientists and most of the general public. However, it remains a lightening rod for school boards, politicians, and television preachers. Much of this confusion results from what the theory says and what it does not say.

Go on to LAST SECTION

St Augustine on Genesis

These quotes ares from St Augustine on the Literal Interpretation of Genesis (I copied it from this page Creation and Genesis you can find more on the question here. )

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9).

Basically, he is saying that God gave us his Word to help us reach heaven, not to save us the trouble of investigating the natural world for ourselves.

He is also saying that Christians should investigate things scientifically. There are some things that can't be known by reason alone, so God revealed them to us in His Word and gave us the gift of faith to help us understand them better. But the things that CAN be known by reason should be investigated by reason, not simply accepted and passed on with no concern for if they are true or not.

This is what the Catholic Church has always held, though there may have been individuals in the Church who didn't act that way. This is still true today, of course, of people both in and out of the Catholic Church.

Now let's go on to the actual text.

Lesson 3 -- Note on Science Textbooks and Catholicism

A couple of characteristics of many secular science textbooks (and sometimes, unfortunately, in other secular books, too) that I wanted to mention here.

One is the tendency to think that the only kind of "science" is material science, that is, knowledge concerning the material universe. Up until recently "science" meant knowledge and so included all other areas where truth can be found -- including theology and metaphysics or philosophy. When the word "science" is used only about material things, it tends to set up a sense that only material things are true or "objective". We'll discuss that more some other time.

Another tendency is to say something along the lines of: "science was suppressed by the Church up until after the Renaissance and Reformation, when finally men and women were allowed to pursue truth freely." Here is an example in the online book we are using for Biology. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find a biology text that doesn't have something similar:

Post-Aristotlean "scientists" were constrained by the prevailing thought patterns of the Middle Ages -- the inerrancy of the biblical book of Genesis and the special creation of the world in a literal six days of the 24-hour variety. Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland, in the late 1600's calculated the age of the earth based on the geneologies from Adam and Eve listed in the biblical book of Genesis. According to Ussher's calculations, the earth was formed on October 22, 4004 B.C......Ussher's ideas were readily accepted, in part because they posed no threat to the social order of the times; comfortable ideas that would not upset the linked applecarts of church and state.

There are many problems with this passage.

• The quotation marks around "scientists", implying that no Christian was really a scientist (historically untrue)
  
• The use of the word "constrained", a loaded word in this context.
  
• The factual error that inerrancy of Genesis necessarily means a 24 hours X 6 days creation (Genesis does not say this).
  
• The slur about "comfortable ideas" and "linked applecarts".
• Finally, Bishop Ussher was an Anglican -- the Catholic Church did not get into mathematical calculations about historical events in that way. St Augustine had said back in the 4th century AD that some of the Genesis "days" might actually be eons or millenia. (This comes up in your history)
  

Basically, the author might as well say that he does not know much about history or religion (no doubt true, but then humility is in order) and that he thinks that there was some kind of vast conspiracy to keep everyone ignorant.

This is simply historically inaccurate, but it is common when people state things according to their prejudices and what they have been told by people rather than looking into the sources themselves. (note: these are mistakes that scientists in particular should be wary about!)

SO:

When you read, look out for easy presuppositions like this one. (I will point them out sometimes, too) Basically, if something you read strikes you as wrong or too vague, file it as questionable in your mind. Sometimes you may find out later that there was more to the question and that new information helps you learn more about the issue. This is a good reading and thinking skill to work on during the high school years.

Go on to next section.

Starting Biology -- Review

Questions:

• What does the word "science" mean?
• Why is it important to have a method?
• What are the steps of the scientific method?
• What is the hierarchy of certainty in science? put in order (law hypothesis theory)
• Why is it important to isolate the variables when doing an experiment?

Do the first two questions in these review questions

End of Lesson.

Starting Biology --2

Questions from last bit (remember, all these questions are "according to the author" -- I just don't want to write that out every time):

• What does "biology" mean?
• How can knowing some biology help you in real life?

Read the following section on the scientific method:

Science and the Scientific Method | here

Science is an objective, logical, and repeatable attempt to understand the principles and forces operating in the natural universe. Science is from the Latin word, scientia, to know. Good science is not dogmatic, but should be viewed as an ongoing process of testing and evaluation. One of the hoped-for benefits of students taking a biology course is that they will become more familiar with the process of science.

Humans seem innately interested in the world we live in. Young children drive their parents batty with constant "why" questions. Science is a means to get some of those whys answered. When we shop for groceries, we are conducting a kind of scientific experiment. If you like Brand X of soup, and Brand Y is on sale, perhaps you try Brand Y. If you like it you may buy it again, even when it is not on sale. If you did not like Brand Y, then no sale will get you to try it again.

In order to conduct science, one must know the rules of the game (imagine playing Monopoly and having to discover the rules as you play! Which is precisely what one does with some computer or videogames (before buying the cheatbook). The scientific method is to be used as a guide that can be modified. In some sciences, such as taxonomy and certain types of geology, laboratory experiments are not necessarily performed. Instead, after formulating a hypothesis, additional observations and/or collections are made from different localities.

Steps in the scientific method commonly include:

1. Observation: defining the problem you wish to explain.
2. Hypothesis: one or more falsifiable explanations for the observation.
3. Experimentation: Controlled attempts to test one or more hypotheses.
4. Conclusion: was the hypothesis supported or not? After this step the hypothesis is either modified or rejected, which causes a repeat of the steps above.

After a hypothesis has been repeatedly tested, a hierarchy of scientific thought develops. Hypothesis is the most common, with the lowest level of certainty. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested with little modification, e.g. The Theory of Evolution. A Law is one of the fundamental underlying principles of how the Universe is organized, e.g. The Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton's Law of Gravity. Science uses the word theory differently than it is used in the general population. Theory to most people, in general nonscientific use, is an untested idea. Scientists call this a hypothesis.

Scientific experiments are also concerned with isolating the variables. A good science experiment does not simultaneously test several variables, but rather a single variable that can be measured against a control. Scientific controlled experiments are situations where all factors are the same between two test subjects, except for the single experimental variable.

Consider a commonly conducted science fair experiment. Sandy wants to test the effect of gangsta rap music on pea plant growth. She plays loud rap music 24 hours a day to a series of pea plants grown under light, and watered every day. At the end of her experiment she concludes gangsta rap is conducive to plant growth. Her teacher grades her project very low, citing the lack of a control group for the experiment. Sandy returns to her experiment, but this time she has a separate group of plants under the same conditions as the rapping plants, but with soothing Led Zeppelin songs playing. She comes to the same conclusion as before, but now has a basis for comparison. Her teacher gives her project a better grade.

Go on to NEXT SECTION

Starting Biology

I thought we could start studying biology bit by bit using this online course: Online Biology Book. We'll start with the first chapter: Nature of Science and Biology.

Biology: The Science of Our Lives

Biology literally means "the study of life". Biology is such a broad field, covering the minute workings of chemical machines inside our cells, to broad scale concepts of ecosystems and global climate change. Biologists study intimate details of the human brain, the composition of our genes, and even the functioning of our reproductive system. Biologists recently all but completed the deciphering of the human genome, the sequence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) bases that may determine much of our innate capabilities and predispositions to certain forms of behavior and illnesses. DNA sequences have played major roles in criminal cases (O.J. Simpson, as well as the reversal of death penalties for many wrongfully convicted individuals), as well as the impeachment of President Clinton (the stain at least did not lie). We are bombarded with headlines about possible health risks from favorite foods (Chinese, Mexican, hamburgers, etc.) as well as the potential benefits of eating other foods such as cooked tomatoes. Informercials tout the benefits of metabolism-adjusting drugs for weight loss. Many Americans are turning to herbal remedies to ease arthritis pain, improve memory, as well as improve our moods.

Can a biology book give you the answers to these questions? No, but it will enable you learn how to sift through the biases of investigators, the press, and others in a quest to critically evaluate the question. To be honest, five years after you are through with this class it is doubtful you would remember all the details of metabolism. However, you will know where to look and maybe a little about the process of science that will allow you to make an informed decision. Will you be a scientist? Yes, in a way. You may not be formally trained as a science major, but you can think critically, solve problems, and have some idea about what science can and cannot do. I hope you will be able to tell the shoe from the shinola.

Go on to NEXT SECTION: