Science Curriculum Preview Committee Clarification of Learning Results

Revised 04/07/04

9-12

F6: Analyze the changes in continental position and the evidence that supports plate tectonics.

Organizing Questions

  • List the evidence that was used to support the continental drift hypothesis.
  • Describe the theory of plate tectonics.
  • Explain the differences between the continental drift hypothesis and the theory of plate tectonics.
  • List and describe the evidence used to support the plate tectonics theory
Elaboration

The theory of plate tectonics was finally accepted by the scientific community in the 1960s, when further evidence had accumulated in support of it. The theory was seen to provide an explanation for a diverse array of seemingly unrelated phenomena, and there was a scientifically sound physical explanation of how such movement could occur. Benchmarks10E3

Specific Ideas
  • The idea of continental drift was suggested by the matching shapes of the Atlantic coasts of Africa and South America, but rejected for lack of other evidence. It just seemed absurd that anything as massive as a continent could move around. Benchmarks 10E1
  • Early in the 20th century, Alfred Wegener, a German scientist, reintroduced the idea of moving continents, adding such evidence as the underwater shapes of the continents, the similarity of life forms and land forms in corresponding parts of Africa and South America, and the increasing separation of Greenland and Europe. Still, very few contemporary scientists adopted his theory. Benchmarks 10E2
  • From time to time, major shifts occur in the scientific view of how the world works. More often, however, the changes that take place in the body of scientific knowledge are small modifications of prior knowledge. Change and continuity are persistent features of science. Benchmarks 1A2
  • No matter how well one theory fits observations, a new theory might fit them just as well or better, or might fit a wider range of observations. In science, the testing, revising, and occasional discarding of theories, new and old, never ends. This ongoing process leads to an increasingly better understanding of how things work in the world but not to absolute truth. Evidence for the value of this approach is given by the improving ability of scientists to offer reliable explanations and make accurate predictions. Benchmarks 1A3
  • In the short run, new ideas that do not mesh well with mainstream ideas in science often encounter vigorous criticism. In the long run, theories are judged by how they fit with other theories, the range of observations they explain, how well they explain observations, and how effective they are in predicting new findings. Benchmarks1B6
  • New ideas in science are limited by the context in which they are conceived; are often rejected by the scientific establishment; sometimes spring from unexpected findings; and usually grow slowly, through contributions from many investigators. Benchmark 1B7
  • The solid crust of the earth--including both the continents and the ocean basins--consists of separate plates that ride on a denser, hot, gradually deformable layer of the earth. The crust sections move very slowly, pressing against one another in some places, pulling apart in other places. Ocean-floor plates may slide under continental plates, sinking deep into the earth. The surface layers of these plates may fold, forming mountain ranges. Benchmarks 4C4
  • Earthquakes often occur along the boundaries between colliding plates, and molten rock from below creates pressure that is released by volcanic eruptions, helping to build up mountains. Under the ocean basins, molten rock may well up between separating plates to create new ocean floor. Volcanic activity along the ocean floor may form undersea mountains, which can thrust above the ocean's surface to become islands. Benchmarks 4C5
Developmental & Instructional Implications

The story of why science accepted the idea of moving continents only after long resistance illuminates the conservatism of the scientific enterprise. Contrary to the popular public image of scientists as radicals ready to discard their beliefs instantly in the face of contrary "facts," the plate-tectonics episode shows that it sometimes takes a large accumulation of evidence over an extended period of time to provoke a dramatic shift in what most scientists in a discipline accept as true. The history of the rise of the theory of plate tectonics shows that the acceptance of a theory depends on its explanatory power as well as on the evidence that supports it. As it has turned out, the modern theory of plate tectonics makes sense out of such a large and diverse array of phenomena related to the earth's surface that it now serves as a unifying principle in geology. In a sense, plate tectonics does for geology what evolution does for biology. Benchmarks p. 247

Examples

Back to Big Ideas Grid F
Back to Standard F
Back to Index