Georgia may shun 'evolution' in schools

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 1/29/2004 | MARY MacDONALD

[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.

[Blzbba]

"It is possible for people to be evolutionist and believe in God"


I'm of the evolutionist belief and see God's detail hidden behind its amazing aspects. I've often wondered why this is such a blasphemous premise to many people. After all, the Bible mentions the 4 pillars of the earth, yet even the most devout, fundamental Biblical Christian no longer believes in the flat-earth theory that statement implies.

[PatrickHenry]

As predicted, the creationoid propaganda machine is swinging into action:
National Think-Tank, Discovery Institute Reports Georgia Schools Should Teach More About Evolution Not Less.

"Think Tank" indeed. Note the deliberately misleading title of their press release. However, their spokesman says: ""They need to be presenting the scientific evidence both for and against Darwin's theory. There is a growing controversy among scientists ... " Blah, blah, blah.

[Gargantua]

"There is? By all means, please present it."
"What might that 'provable truth' be?"

Nothing I can say will make God's Truth more apparent to those who refuse to see, but it not only surrounds you every minute of every day of your life...

...you yourselves are part of it as well.

May you open the eyes God gave you to His eternal Truth, and should you not, may God have mercy upon your eternal souls.

;-/

[VadeRetro]

"Think tank?" Try "PR machine."

[balrog666]

Genesis is fine for itinerant Palestinian goat herders. Move on.

Good line.

[Blzbba]

"Nothing I can say will make God's Truth more apparent to those who refuse to see,"


That may be true, but then - the Bible mentions the 4 pillars of the earth, implying a flat-earth belief. Surely you don't believe that, do you?

The Lord works in mysterious ways. Being a mere mortal, I don't purport to knowing or understanding them, as that suggests a certain degree of Pride, which is forbidden/warned-against in scripture.

[Gargantua]

[God] shall send a helper, and this is the Holy Spirit, which will aid men in understanding the Word, and the Heart, and the Mind of God.

If you've read the Bible, and come away with a belief that it suggests a "flat earth", then your capacity for misunderstanding and inattention speaks volumes.

One of the prophets in the Bible was borne up into space, and described seeing the Earth hanging suspended in the heavens like a "lush, ripe fruit."

Sound "flat" to you? Me neither.

The more you argue against the Truth, the deeper the hole you dig yourself into. I will not, as a believer, contribute to your eternal fate by encouraging your continued blasphemy in further discourse.

You know the Truth, and you only speak against it at your own peril.

;-/

[Dimensio]

I guess I am going to have to spell it out for you, 'it looks that way to me' means Y.E.S.!!

Okay, then, prove it. It should be incredibly easy. Go back to any old crevo discussion here on FR and point out someone who was supporting creationism in that discussion who is bashing it in this particular discussion.

Such an incredibly simple proof, I do hope that you won't chicken out.

[Dimensio]

Nothing I can say will make God's Truth more apparent to those who refuse to see, but it not only surrounds you every minute of every day of your life...

In other words, it's not "provable truth", it is just your subjective opinion -- one that is not shared by the majority of the planet.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

[Dimensio]

Evolution is an hypothesis, not a theory.

Evolution (honestly, I prefer using "common descent theory", and sticking with "change in allele frequency over time" as the definition of "evolution", but that's becuase I nitpick) makes predictions, has tests for these predictions and has defined observations that would falsify it. That and the fact that it invokes nothing supernatural means that it satisfies the definition of a theory.

You not liking it does not make it less of a theory.

[Gargantua]

"...the Bible mentions the 4 pillars of the earth, implying a flat-earth..."

It does? Really? What chapter and verse do you claim makes this representation?

Prove your point... or admit your lie.

;-/

[realpatriot71]

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

Bingo. Why does the liberal establishment push evolution as hard as they do? Why the resistance to even mentioning other ideas on origins, and forget about even having one lecture that discusses dissenting ideas and opinions, not in public schools.

"Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state." - Hitler

"Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a Socialist state." - Lenin

"In order to capture this nation, one has to totally remove moral and spiritual values and absolutes from the thinking of the child. The child has to think that there is no standard of right and wrong, that truth is relative, and that diversity is the only absolute to be gained." - American Humanist Association

[Dimensio]

In order to make a statement like that it should be OBVIOUS that I have examined the "evidence" and evolutionary facts are "dammed".

Gee, sorry. Given that you didn't address a single issue with evolution but rather dismissed the whole theory out of hand, you might want to work on making your point a little more OBVIOUS.

No clear thinking person who is objective will deny that evolution is merely a theory with NO facts to support it.

Again, you say this, but you offer nothing to support it. I can easily say "No clear thinking person who is objective will deny that Christianity is just a sham with NO facts to support it.", but my saying it does not make it true.

If you would like to believe that people were derived from apes.

More like humans and apes had a common ancestor. If you can't even get that right, why should I believe that you've studied anything with respect to evolution?

Order came out of chaos.

Huh? What does this have to do with anything? If you're bringing up non-sequiturs like this, why should I believe that you've studied anything with respect to evolution?

We're still "evolving".

Actually, humans have done quite a bit toward preventing evolution from occuring within the species lately, because we've learned to greatly control our environment. Given that evolution is driven by a subset within a population being better able to survive and reproduce in a given environment, but we're able to alter our environment so that nearly everyone is able to survive and reproduce, we've done a great deal in preventing evolution from occuring. This isn't to say that evolution won't still occur in humans, but it will take much longer for any real noticable changes to appear within the species.

Not that I understand what this has to do with disproving evolution.

Life comes from inanimate molecules

Irrelevant to evolution. If you're bringing up non-sequiturs like this, why should I believe that you've studied anything with respect to evolution?

and on and on the illogical theory goes

Thus far you've not demonstrated a single logical problem with evolution theory. You have, at best, presented elements that you "don't like" (some of which aren't part of evolution theory, others you have grossly misstated) and attempted an argument from ridicule.

There have been sooo many threads on this.

Yes, and in so many there are very few (though there are some) creationists who seem capable of offering any intelligent or insightful commentary. Typically they're filled with inane banter, streams of logical fallacies and the occasional (or not-so-occasional for some) personal attack.

I suggest you look one up and for once learn what evolution really is. It's a joke.

If you think that discussions on FR are the sole source of information on the theory of evolution (and especially since you seem to ignore all but the posts by creationists), it's no wonder that your understanding of evolution is so poor.

As for me, I'm not going to waste my time on it.

Well, you seemed to find the time to post a completely inane rant on how the theory is "stupid" without actually showing what is wrong with it.

[Dimensio]

Why does the liberal establishment push evolution as hard as they do?

You misspelled "scientific". Hope this helps.

Why the resistance to even mentioning other ideas on origins, and forget about even having one lecture that discusses dissenting ideas and opinions, not in public schools.

The problem is that a number of crackpots want to insert "alternatives" to evolution into science classrooms even though not a one of these "alternatives" is actually scientific in nature.

"Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state." - Hitler

Oh, dear. Godwin invoked.

[whattajoke]

Why the resistance to even mentioning other ideas on origins, and forget about even having one lecture that discusses dissenting ideas and opinions, not in public schools.

You answered your own question with the term, "public schools." Public schools serve in a non religious capacity. Again, I need to ask you, are you aware of the multitude of various origins myths? In our country alone, you have who knows how many native american myths, let alone the hundreds, if not thousands, of various religious creation stories. They are all fine for church or pow wows, but not for the classroom.

Hitler... Lenin... Humanism...

sigh. Godwin has been breached. I'm sorry to say you have now shown yourself to be irrelevant.

[realpatriot71]

You misspelled "scientific". Hope this helps.

No, I spelled it "liberal" because it is true. Why do you think the ACLU fights for evolution every chance it gets? It's a liberal institution with a liberal axe to grind. You're the one with the strange bedfellow, not me.

The problem is that a number of crackpots want to insert "alternatives" to evolution into science classrooms even though not a one of these "alternatives" is actually scientific in nature.

I see, so even the mention that there is alternate ideas. You can't mention, even once, that some people examine what is objective and say because its so perfect it couldn't have happen the way "science" says that it did? What's unscientific about that?

But I understand why you fight so hard against it. No one likes to have their cherished beliefs challeged, so it's understandable.

[realpatriot71]

I'm sorry to say you have now shown yourself to be irrelevant.

Really? So you deny that the goal of socialist-communist-humanist governemnts and organizations is to remove any mention of God from society at large? What's one way to accomplish this? Well, obviously, construct a scientific theory that takes God out of the equation, teach it to the children, and they'll stop believing. You're the "conservative" in bed with communist doctrine, not me.

[ought-six]

Where is Clarence Darrow? I thought this kind a crap only occurred in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925!

[Dimensio]

Why do you think the ACLU fights for evolution every chance it gets?

They fight against the "alternatives", because the proposed "alternatives" are always religious in nature.

I see, so even the mention that there is alternate ideas.

Feel free to mention that there are "alternate" ideas that are totally unscientific in nature.

You can't mention, even once, that some people examine what is objective and say because its so perfect it couldn't have happen the way "science" says that it did?

Sure you can mention that. Just don't pretend that it's a scientific conclusion, and don't try teaching it as science.

But I understand why you fight so hard against it. No one likes to have their cherished beliefs challeged, so it's understandable.

Yes, it is hard for me to fight against creationists who react so harshly because they feel threatened by their cherished beliefs being challenged when reality completely contradicts them.

[Dimensio]

So you deny that the goal of socialist-communist-humanist governemnts and organizations is to remove any mention of God from society at large? What's one way to accomplish this? Well, obviously, construct a scientific theory that takes God out of the equation, teach it to the children, and they'll stop believing.

Absolutely no scientific theory includes any gods in the equation. You're just taking one that you don't like and claiming that it's part of some conspiracy because of that fact.

Evolution came about because it was the best explanation to fit observed evidence. It was not invented out of thin air as a justification for a completely secular worldview. If you want to argue that evolution is wrong, then point out where the theory is in error. Lying about the very origin of the theory does not hurt anyone's credibility but your own.