Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Georgia may shun 'evolution' in schools
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 1/29/2004 | MARY MacDONALD

Posted on 01/29/2004 3:08:06 AM PST by Ben Chad

Revised curriculum plan outrages science teachers

By MARY MacDONALD The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Georgia students could graduate from high school without learning much about evolution, and may never even hear the word uttered in class.

New middle and high school science standards proposed by state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox strike references to "evolution" and replace them with the term "biological changes over time," a revision critics say will further weaken learning in a critical subject.

Outraged teachers already have told the state it is undercutting the science education of young Georgians.

"Just like any major issue people need to deal with, you need to know the facts," said David Bechler, head of the biology department at Valdosta State University. A member of the committee that worked on the biology standards, Bechler said he was stunned to learn that evolution was not in the final proposal.

"Whether you believe in creationism or not, evolution should be known and understood by the public," he argued.

Cox declined requests for an interview on the issue. A spokesman issued a statement Wednesday that said: "The discussion of evolution is an age-old debate and it is clear that there are those in Georgia who are passionate on both sides of the issue -- we want to hear from all of them."

Cox, a Republican elected to the state's top public school position in 2002, addressed the issue briefly in a public debate during the campaign. The candidates were asked about a school dispute in Cobb County over evolution and Bible-based teachings on creation.

Cox responded: "It was a good thing for parents and the community to stand up and say we want our children exposed to this [creationism] idea as well. . . . I'd leave the state out of it and I would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories."

Gateway course

Biology is a gateway course to future studies of the life sciences. And scientists consider evolution the basis for biology, a scientific explanation for the gradual process that has resulted in the diversity of living things.

If the state does not require teachers to cover evolution thoroughly, only the most politically secure teachers will attempt to do so, said Wes McCoy, a 26-year biology teacher at North Cobb High School. Less experienced teachers will take their cue from the state requirements, he said.

"They're either going to tread very lightly or they're going to ignore it," McCoy said. "Students will be learning some of the components of evolution. They're going to be missing how that integrates with the rest of biology. They may not understand how evolution explains the antibiotic resistance in bacteria."

The state curriculum does not preclude an individual public school system from taking a deeper approach to evolution, or any other topic. And the proposed change would not require school systems to buy new textbooks that omit the word.

But Georgia's curriculum exam, the CRCT, will be rewritten to align with the new curriculum. And the state exam is the basis for federal evaluation, which encourages schools and teachers to focus on teaching the material that will be tested.

A year in the works

The revision of Georgia's curriculum began more than a year ago as an attempt to strengthen the performance of students by requiring greater depth on essential topics. The new curriculum will replace standards adopted in 1984 that have been criticized by many educators as shallow. The state Board of Education is expected to vote on the revised curriculum in May.

The Georgia Department of Education based its biology curriculum on national standards put forth by a respected source, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But while the state copied most of the national standards, it deleted much of the section that covers the origin of living things.

A committee of science teachers, college professors and curriculum experts was involved in reviewing the proposal. The state did not specify why the references to evolution were removed, and by whom, even to educators involved in the process.

Terrie Kielborn, a middle school science teacher in Paulding County who was on the committee, recalled that Stephen Pruitt, the state's curriculum specialist for science, told the panel not to include the word evolution.

"We were pretty much told not to put it in there," Kielborn said. The rationale was community reaction, she said.

"When you say the word evolution, people automatically, whatever age they are, think of the man-monkey thing," Kielborn said.

Pruitt could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

Cox released the state's proposed new curriculum on Jan. 12 and invited comments on all subject areas for the next three months from parents, teachers and students. She described the new curriculum as world-class and said it provides clear direction to teachers for the first time on what will be expected of students.

Backlash a result

The biology revision was eagerly awaited by a strongly organized network of scientists, university professors and classroom teachers. Several teachers and professors say they are pleased the state adopted large sections of the national standards, which include a strengthened explanation of the nature of science, the function and structure of cells and genetics.

But the treatment of evolution prompted a backlash. More than 600 Georgians, including professors and teachers, by Wednesday had signed an online petition challenging the curriculum as misguided.

If Georgia approves the revised curriculum, the state will be among six that avoid the word "evolution" in science teaching, according to the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization that advocates for evolution instruction.

Many other states, including North Carolina and South Carolina, have adopted national standards that cover evolution in detail.

The word "evolution" itself is important because it is a scientific term, said Sarah Pallas, an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University. "Students need to know the language of science," she said. "They don't need to know euphemisms. It's just silly."

The proposed changes in the Georgia curriculum would leave students with tremendous gaps when they reach college, Pallas said.

"The students from other states always perform better in my classes, and that's a real indictment of the state educational system," the professor said. "North Carolina, another very conservative state, adopted all of the benchmarks. If they can do it in North Carolina, why can't Georgia do it?"

Debate over how and whether to teach evolution has divided communities and states for years.

In metro Atlanta, the Cobb County school system became the center of national attention in 2002 after it placed disclaimers about evolution in science textbooks and adopted a policy that could have allowed discussion of alternate views in science class.

The Cobb superintendent defused the dispute by issuing guidelines for teachers that told them to stick to the state curriculum.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: crevolist; education; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 481-496 next last
To: Dimensio
Uh, you're saying that the people who supported creationism in the discussions a year ago are the same people who oppose it now?

If the shoe fits.

201 posted on 01/29/2004 8:33:16 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
How ridiculous evolution is speaks for itself. It's like trying to convince me that the earth is flat. I equate evolution think with that kind of ludicrosy.
202 posted on 01/29/2004 8:41:50 PM PST by nmh (Intelligent people acknowledge Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
"Uh, you're saying that the people who supported creationism in the discussions a year ago are the same people who oppose it now?"

If the shoe fits.


What "if the shoe fits"? This isn't a subjective issue. Either the same people who defended creationism now attack it or not. You asserted that this is the case. You should easily be able to show this by pointing to a discussion wherein someone who is currently decrying the Georgia decision was defending creationism in the past.
203 posted on 01/29/2004 8:42:50 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: nmh
How ridiculous evolution is speaks for itself. It's like trying to convince me that the earth is flat. I equate evolution think with that kind of ludicrosy.

In other words, you've decided before even looking at the evidence that you're right, and facts be damned.
204 posted on 01/29/2004 8:44:06 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Exactly. They don't have to believe it, but they need to know what scientists believe.

Many scientists believe in Intelligent Design rather than Evolution. Intelligent design is not taught in government schools because it implies the existence of an intelligent Creator, a.k.a. God. The implication of a greater intelligence is untenable to the left.

205 posted on 01/29/2004 8:47:27 PM PST by Huber (Love of one's own is inferior to love of what is both one's own, and good. - L. Strauss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Huber
Many scientists believe in Intelligent Design rather than Evolution.

Name credible biologists who subscribe to the Intelligent Design story.

Intelligent design is not taught in government schools because it implies the existence of an intelligent Creator, a.k.a. God.

Actually, the problem is that it's not a scientific theory.

The implication of a greater intelligence is untenable to the left.

Evolution makes no statements regarding the existence or nonexistence of a "greater intelligence.
206 posted on 01/29/2004 8:49:46 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I am tired of the Southern bashing on FR and I am going to reply to it.
207 posted on 01/29/2004 8:51:17 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
I am tired of the Southern bashing on FR and I am going to reply to it.

You dodged the question. Why can't you answer the question? It is a very simple question.

Are the people who are bashing creationism now the same people who defended creationism in previous discussions on FR?
208 posted on 01/29/2004 8:52:49 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
I am not attacking Creationism. I am attacking the time wasted on verbage by Kathy Cox. Pray tell, how does that make me a hypocrite?

I live in an area where Meth has become the drug of choice in our schools. It can be bought in any neighborhood or street corner. Young girls get pregnant and are able to have abortions without parental consent. Dumb Johnny cannot make change. In spite of all the grand planning, the state of education in Georgia has not changed. It sucks. And Kathy Cox is worried about a word? Give me a break.

209 posted on 01/29/2004 8:53:44 PM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I am answering your question. You want to know what "if the shoes fits" means, it means I am sick and tired of the double-standard hypocrisy some people on the FR for the South.
210 posted on 01/29/2004 8:55:53 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: civil discourse; anniegetyourgun
One of my problems with the so-called "creationists" is not what they believe, but what whey want to conceal from myself, my children and now my grandchildren.

The characters you are describing are no more reprepresentative of creationists than the drooling monobrow types from central casting that the mainstream networks put in front of the camera to represent the conservative position on the second amendment.

The bulk of creationists do not claim to understand the full detail of how God created the universe but do see the hand of God in the details of the world around them.

211 posted on 01/29/2004 8:59:34 PM PST by Huber (Love of one's own is inferior to love of what is both one's own, and good. - L. Strauss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
I am answering your question. You want to know what "if the shoes fits" means, it means I am sick and tired of the double-standard hypocrisy some people on the FR for the South.

My question was "are the people who are bashing creationism now the same people who have supported creationism in the past?" You have, thus far, not answered my question.

I have not made any comments regarding the south or the inhabitants of the south, though I'm starting to come to unflattering conclusions regarding one particular supporter of the south based upon his constant ducking of an issue.
212 posted on 01/29/2004 9:01:26 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
My question was "are the people who are bashing creationism now the same people who have supported creationism in the past?" You have, thus far, not answered my question.

It looks that way to me.

213 posted on 01/29/2004 9:02:54 PM PST by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
"My question was "are the people who are bashing creationism now the same people who have supported creationism in the past?" You have, thus far, not answered my question."

It looks that way to me.


Is your "it looks that way to me" your concession that you are ducking the issue, or are you saying that it "looks" like the people who supported creationism are now bashing it? Whether it "looks like it" is irrelevant, I'm asking if it actually is the case. Given that you can very easily prove this by referencing ANY previous discussion on FR where the now-creation-bashers were creation-supporters then, I don't know why you keep ducking the issue with total non-answers.
214 posted on 01/29/2004 9:06:15 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Name credible biologists who subscribe to the Intelligent Design story.

I suspect a lack of precision in your terminology. Define credible. Name credible biologists who subscribe to the Evolution story.

Actually, the problem is that it's not a scientific theory.

Why not? Are you using circular logic?

Evolution makes no statements regarding the existence or nonexistence of a "greater intelligence.

Darwin didn't, and had many doubts about his theory. However many of his zealous disciples have erased all doubt, and utilize evolution as the basis of justifying a Godless society. It is possible for people to be evolutionist and believe in God, under the "blind watchmaker" scenario. However, this worldview of the disinterested God generally leads to effective agnosticism.

215 posted on 01/29/2004 9:17:13 PM PST by Huber (Love of one's own is inferior to love of what is both one's own, and good. - L. Strauss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: All
You vill not defy dee orters uff dee ACLU. Zee chiltren vill aksept dee Darwin or else. Zee zientist dusst not make dee miztake....effer.

Deth to dose infidelss who still belief zee bibul over dee hypothesis uff dee 19th zentury crackpot. ( Heil Darwin, Heil Darrow, Heil Marx, Heil ACLU )
Vee haff no Got but Darwin, it iss die fakt, I zaw it happen, beleef me or die.

216 posted on 01/29/2004 9:22:45 PM PST by joe_broadway (What utter nonsense, the myth of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Huber
Intelligent design is not taught in government schools because it implies the existence of an intelligent Creator, a.k.a. God.

Are you claiming the Intelligent Design is equivalent to Creationism?

217 posted on 01/29/2004 9:27:41 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
It depends on how one defines the process of Creation. In my mind the answer is yes, but many evangelical fundamentalists would disagree.
218 posted on 01/29/2004 9:39:44 PM PST by Huber (Love of one's own is inferior to love of what is both one's own, and good. - L. Strauss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Huber
I suspect a lack of precision in your terminology. Define credible.

Posessing a degree in a biological field from an accredited university (ie, not Patriot U). Does not resort to old, debunked arguments years after they've been debunked.

Name credible biologists who subscribe to the Evolution story.

Evolution is not a "story", it's a theory.

As for biologists who accept it, you can find a number who also happen to be named "Steve" (or a variation thereof). While not everyone on that list is a biologist, many are and all accept the theory of evolution as a valid scientific explanation.

Why not? Are you using circular logic?

Nope, I'm using the definition of "theory". If you want to prove me wrong, answer all of the following.

How can ID be tested?
What observations should come from this testing (this is essentially asking what predictions can be made from ID)?
What results from tests, if ever observed, would falsify ID?
Does ID invoke any elements that are not entirely a part of the natural universe, such as supernatural entities?

Darwin didn't, and had many doubts about his theory.

Could you cite some of these doubts? When doing so, please don't quote him out of context. I see that far too often from creationists.

However many of his zealous disciples have erased all doubt, and utilize evolution as the basis of justifying a Godless society.

Well, that's stupid. Evolution has nothing to do with whether or not any gods exist. Of course, people drawing incorrect (and impossible) conclusions from a scientific theory is a failing of theirs, not the theory.

It is possible for people to be evolutionist and believe in God, under the "blind watchmaker" scenario.

Or undera number of more specific religions, including Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Wicca or various others.

However, this worldview of the disinterested God generally leads to effective agnosticism.

Only because you lack the imagination to consider a worldview in which evolution is true and a God who is interested in its creation exists.
219 posted on 01/29/2004 9:45:32 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: joe_broadway
Hmm. Argument from ridicule. Silly, but it does nothing to add credibility to your position.
220 posted on 01/29/2004 9:46:18 PM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 481-496 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson