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.
If you are an evolutionist you should be all to familiar with evolutionists dishing out ridicule.
The implication that there is anything higher than the STATE is the left's problem with God and creation.
Evolution MUST exist as the biological and scientific counterpart to the economics of socialism, to the sociology of the Welfare State, the culture of death (euthanasia, abortion), etc.
If the state is not supreme, collectivism and postmodernism crumble like a house of cards.
Odd, is it? Huxley, Menchen, Darrow, Asimov, Sagan, Gould, just to name a few who habitually practiced ridicule in the name of evolution and inspired countless others to do likewise. They certainly set the example.
Evolution is an hypothesis, not a theory.
It would be interesting to figure out how far a gene could actually "wander" before the chances of it ever being able to be re-activated again are nil. Like the Vitamin C pseudo gene in people is probably gone for good while occasionally babies are born with tails so the tail pseudogene probably isn't that "Far Gone" and can still occasionally get activated.
As for blonde hair, perhaps we just haven't bred apes enough to get a blonde ape?
The only primate I can think of that has blonde hair is the Japanese snow monkeys and maybe Baboons (though they look kind of grey). Well there is an interesting science experiment to see if there is a Blonde hair pseudogene in Chimpanzees and even in races that blonde hair is absent like blacks and orientals.
On a note of interest, for many mammals, it has been shown that if you breed the tamest of the tame, you will eventually get an animal with black-and-white fur. This came from an article posted on FR some time ago. Cats, mice, foxes... researchers (or breeders) took wild stock, and bred the tamest of the stock, and continuing doing so for successive generations until they eventually ended up with a tame black-and-white spotted mammal. Wonder how high up in the mammal heirarchy this domesticatic black-and-white fur gene exists?
Actually hair color changes might not have to do with tameness but disease. Domestication brings animals into more contact with each other that they wouldn't other wise experience in the wild which exposes them to more diseases and certain hair colors might offer more resistance to them. The black hair of cats for instance gives them resistance to feline HIV and I heard the same of white cats being more resistant to the feline flu. So a black and white combo might offer the most resistance and thus making the animal most likely to be able to survive domestication. It doesn't occur in the wild because both white and black would be easy to spot and the animal would either be quickly eaten or starve
Also researching the cats I found that black hair evolved independently in at least four different species. It was on the same gene that the black hair on those 4 different cats comes from but it was four different mutations on that gene. So I will have to look into it more because it seems like if it can happen in cats it can happen in humans (and other mammals) also. So hair color could also have evolved separately instead of gene skipping.
I think that would describe what I believe in, but some creationists will say that's heretical.
I think it's not taught in schools for 2 reasons: (1) might violate separation of church & state, at least according to the courts, and (2) can't be proven - i.e., no evidence to support it.
Before you start arguing with me on #2, please review your definition of "faith" - it's belief in things which can't be empirically proven, correct?
The invisible army of satanic grant-seekers has been mobilized.
My answer is my faith didn't come from a book it came from the one true living God, as a gift. That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it to them. I can think of no other way to explain it.
Really my point in posting to begin with was to disagree with the Georgia plan not to use the word evolution or strive to quench discussion. I have been learning along with my children that Charles Darwin was a good scientist in many respects. Even the greatest of scientists in the past have been found, to one degree or another, to be incorrect in their deductions.
I think that from the very time of creation men should have seen the evidence of God's existence and His work in the universe He created. Including us!
Actually, when my son read Dr. Wile's module on evolution he came to me and said that Dr. Wile makes a good case FOR evolution in many respects. My son was surprised and so was I. I think he and I are so used to both sides bashing each other that no one is really listening. In Dr. Wile's text, I think he truly strived to understand Darwin's work and explain it to his students, but he disagreed with Darwin's conclusions and gave a variety of reasons why.
And, you are correct, I would be doing harm if I used "simply cannot put your faith in something as flawed as science" exclusively. I think this year I've learned more clearly-- that methodical and honest methods must be applied to whatever aspect studied. It is no place for emotion. And I learned how much science can change and how what one person discovers in one generation can tumble down the next or be further built upon. It's not an easy subject for me to grasp and I admit that my opinion is based on my faith in a living God who has given me a faith that believes He is the Creator of all things. Believing in creationism is not my salvation however and likewise believing in evolution is not one's doom as some might believe.
Mass defection of biologists to Intelligent Design Theory
"The Darwinian vision of life is fast losing touch with reality, and specifically with the design that pervades the world at the biochemical level, a world about which Darwin knew nothing. As with all dying paradigms, Darwinism’s old guard will not, to paraphrase Dylan Thomas, go gently into that good night. Count on them to rage against the dying light. Notwithstanding, the Darwinian vision is on the way out, to be replaced by a new vision that captures our imagination and at the same time is grounded in reality. Intelligent design is that new vision."
~Dembski
THE DESIGN REVOLUTION: ANSWERING THE TOUGHEST QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN
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.