I'm having some spare time, and I'll be trying to catch up with some long-neglected discussions.

"C'mon Krauze, you're reading Jablonka and Lamb now. Do you think that a high school student who doesn't even know what the Modern Synthesis is, much less studied it in any detail, would be able to comprehend what you are reading?"

What did I tell you earlier? I'm not interested in dictating the curriculum of high school science classes. Nor did Bipod display any such interest in his opening post. So why do you insist on dragging the topic into the discussion?

"As far as the overblown rhetoric goes, obviously there is a lot we don't know yet; if you can provide me some examples of the overblown rhetoric, I can tell you whether I feel a need to distance myself from it."

We can start with Daniel Dennett's claim of Darwinism as a "universal acid" (dis)solving all aspects of biology (not to mention the rest of reality), accusing Stephen Gould of using "skyhooks" because he claimed that there was more to evolution than natural selection.

"Here is an interesting article on real controversies regarding biological development:
Pharyngula"

"Real controversies" As opposed to what? The ones between Jablonka, Lamb, and their critics? Or are you once again trying to fit my views into your preconceived mental categories?

As far as the overblown rhetoric goes, obviously there is a lot we don't know yet; if you can provide me some examples of the overblown rhetoric, I can tell you whether I feel a need to distance myself from it.

"Sorry, Krauze, I was just relying on your say so as to what NCSE informs students of."

And yet you managed to reconstruct the NCSE's reasons for doing this; it's "going to sail right over their heads". This piece of information wasn't part of my "say so", so where did you get it from?

"Wouldn't you agree, though, that istudents need to learn what the Modern Synthesis is before they can begin to appreciate the significance of high level criticism which was published this year?"

As I don't have any experience teaching biology to high schoolers, I really don't have any basis from which to answer this question.

Look, my interest isn't with high school curricula, but with the dilemma posed by Bipod. Either you pretend like all that's left to do is to iron out the detail, making evolutionary biology seem as dull as a box of hair, or you acknowledge the unsolved questions, meaning you'll have to distance yourself from much of the overblown rhetoric.

Perhaps you guys should work out among yourselves what NCSE actually want students to learn, and whether this is appropriate.

Probably because they are more appropriate for college level courses. I suspect that few American high school students even learn the basics of the Modern Synthesis, as is demonstrated daily by the statements I read coming from creationists (you know, "if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes?"); cutting edge biological research is going to sail right over their heads.

"What makes anyone think NCSE wouldn't mention Jablonka and Lamb? I think that's an unevidenced claim, and a bitter and false stereotype."

Well, have they? I asked Aagcobb if he thought there were any serious unsolved problem in evolutionary biology, and apart from the phylogeny of birds, he didn't know of any, as he wasn't "on the cutting edge of biological research". Are you saying that all he had to do was surf over to the NCSE homepage, and there'd have been an article explaining it?

"In what way does the NCSE fail to inform students of those "exciting concepts?" In Texas in 2003, it was NCSE who defended such things, and Discovery Institute which said it was all wrong and immoral to teach it."

I don't follow the political battles over school curricula. Please enlighten me as to what exactly the nature of these "such things" was that NCSE was defending.

In what way does the NCSE fail to inform students of those "exciting concepts?" In Texas in 2003, it was NCSE who defended such things, and Discovery Institute which said it was all wrong and immoral to teach it.