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.
What other "theories" are there? Honestly, neither creationism nor ID meet the standards of a scientific theory. They are neither testable nor falsifiable, nor do they make any testable predictions. If there were any other "theories" you can be darned sure they would be included.
In any case, I'm not worried about science or scientific progress being anti-God. For without Him, there would be no science. Therefore, science can't be anti-God - only people can be. And most are.
Which isn't going to take any time at all.
Actually, it can and it does. There have been numerous observed instances of speciation. Genetic studies of point mutations confirms the evidence found in the fossil record as to the veracity of the theory of evolution. You throw out these unsupported statements and then attempt to cut off all debate by claiming you're not interested in "rehashing" the arguments. That statement alone, my dear, is indicative of someone who doesn't want to face the evidence.
Present your best arguement against evolution. Odds are, it's been tackled on these threads a dozen times.
How Best to Assure the Blessings of Liberty to Our Posterity?What are the Causes of the Problem?
Adults die and posterity must carry on into the indefinite future.What Are the Possible Solutions to the Problem?
Children are not born knowing how to pursue happiness.
Adults pursue happiness partly by transmitting their own understanding of the pursuit of happiness to children.
Some Adults pursue happiness in ways which abuse children--and their parents.
Lack of consensus about curriculum.
Politics in the classroom and in the school administration.
People foolishly disagreeing with me about how and what children should be taught.
Make everyone do it my way.What Solution Do You Recommend?
Accept that there is more than one way to educate children.
Assign authority over the education of any given child to the adult(s) only in proportion as they have responsibility for that child's ability to pursue happiness in the long run.
Assign authority to each child's parents almost exclusively.Government's first commandment is, "First, do no harm."
Exactly the reverse, Ben. The Evolution dogma is being rightly challenged. Look into it. It doesn't hold up. And the only alternative to it is not literal Biblical "Creationism".
A quote from my homeschool son's biology text: Written by Dr. Jay Wile, a Christian.
"It is important to note that Darwin was a careful, meticulous scientist. He was not the anti-religion crusader that many have made him out to be. If you actually read his work, you will find it is quite even-handed.....You will not find that kind of even-handedness in the majority of scientific writing that occurs today. Indeed, modern scientists (especially evolutionary crusaders)could learn a lot from Darwin's style. Darwin's only real mistake was to allow his faith to erode as a result of the science he pursued on the HMS Beagle."
Dr. Jay L. Wile goes on to tell what Darwin wrote in his Diary while on the HMS Beagle. How he "bore the brunt of a good deal laughter from several officers for quoting the Bible as final authority on some moral point." Yet, Darwin's faith eroded. A few years later Darwin was "attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant that was not more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus." "Darwin began his career as a Bible-believing Christian. He had no intention of harming the church. He was merely communicating what he thought were the obvious conclusions of science."
"Finally, a look at Darwin's life can show you how horrible the results are when you put your faith in science. Science is limited and is constantly changing. What we thought were scientific laws less than a century ago are now shown to be wrong. ...we now know that most of Darwin's ideas were very wrong! You simply cannot put your faith in something as flawed as science."
"In the end, then, scientists are indoctrinated at a very early age to be macroevolutionists; they are ridiculted throughout their careers if they believe otherwise; they usually cannot spare the time necessary to look into the facts regarding macroevolution; and they are often punished for believing anything else. These issues keep scientists from learning new data necessary to help them understand the fact that macroevolution is no more than an unconfirmed hypothesis. Although things seem to be changing (a lower percentage of scientists believe in macroevolution today than any time over the last 50 years) the pace of change will stay very slow unless schools (both at the secondary and college level) allow more academic freedom to simply discuss the data relevant to macroevolution and allow the presentation of other alternatives."
Likely the answer in Georgia is not to quench the use of the word 'evolution' but rather to allow a 'presentation of other alternations'.
No time at all? I guess you have not seen,or read, the abundance of writings out there refuting evolution. It's no small subject; just small minds that have narrowed to a place of refusing to see facts that evolution should not be elevated to 'theory' and is really an unconfirmed hypothesis.
More Dr. Jay L. Wile:
*The geological column: If you believe that the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell, then it is evidence for macroevolution because it shows that life forms early in earth's history were simple and gradually get more complex. If you believe that the geological column was formed by natural catastrophe, then it is evidence against macroevolution. Some geologists have seen rock strata formed each way, it is impossible to tell which belief is scientifically correct.
*The fossil record: There is no clear intermediate links in the fossil record. The very few that macroevolutionists can produce are so similar to one of the two species they supposedly link, it is more scientifically sound to consider them a part of that species.
*Structural homology: The similar structures are not a result of inheritance from a common ancestor, because the similar structures are determined by quite different species.
*Molecular biology: There is no evolutionary patterns in the sequence of amino acids of common proteins.
That isn't a very gracious thing to say. Our faith is a gift from God not something any of us can conjure up. My eyes were long blind to the truth of the Gospel until He opened them. It isn' intelligence that opens them my friend.
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.