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.

[Dimensio]

Probabilities that life could have risen by itself, Irrelevant to evolution.

and furthermore that life could have made its way from single cell creatures to what we see to day.

Since it is obvious that you have direct access to a source that has calculated this probability or you have calculated it yourself, I'd like to see a reference.

It all so highly unprobable as to be rediculous, but we're here so it must have happened (QED?)

So high improbability (assuming that you're even right on the probability angle) = impossibility?
It is highly improbable to choose the correct numbers for the Powerball Lottery. Somehow, however, people do the "impossible" and still win and on a regular basis, at that (people win, not the same people).

Give me an example of what you call a beneficial mutation.

You're right of course, evolution deals with life, not before life.

I think that you're beginning to understand.

Ironically, life has to form from chemicals before evolution can happen,

Oops. You were doing so well, too.
Life has to exist before evolution can happen. What causes this life to exist is not relevant to evolution.

so it's such a bitch when the lack of biochemical theories screws up the beginning of the first cell.

Nothing is "screwing up" the beginning of the first cell. Thus far, no answer has been formulated that has reached the level of "theory". This does not invalidate evolution, because evolution only addresses the life after it starts to reproduce. No reproducing life forms, no evolution. As the process that brought the first life form into existence must have involved, in at least one step, a point where there were no life forms (much less reproducing ones) on earth, evolution cannot be used to address that process.

No first cell, no evolution - therefore, COMPLETELY revelvant.

All that is needed is that the "first cell" (or cells) exist. It matters not to evolution how that first cell came into existence.

Once again (and I get sick of repeating this, why can't creationists grasp this incredibly simple concept?):
The first cell(s) could have come into being through naturalsitic abiogenesis OR it could have been zap-poofed into existence by a divine agent OR it could have been seeded on this planet by interdimensional aliens OR it could have been planted by time-travelling humans from the future. ANY of those explanations being correct, or all being incorrect and another answer being the true method, would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the theory of evolution. As such, the question of where the first life form came from is immaterial to evolution.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Stop twisting my posts to fit you views on things and actually read them for a change. You are like a child who won't quit, even when he knows he has lost.

[Dimensio]

Stop twisting my posts to fit you views on things and actually read them for a change.

What are you talking about? You made a very specific statement. I have challenged this statement. Thus far, you've not provided any evidence to support your position despite the fact that it should be an incredibly easy statement to support, yet you continue to shout to all who will hear that you are correct.

You stated that there are hypocrites here based upon creation being bashed here while it was supported in previous discussions. Give me one Freeper name who defended creationism in the past but is currently trashing Georgia for this decision. Just one, and you'll prove me utterly wrong.

You are like a child who won't quit, even when he knows he has lost.

No, I'm more like that annoying pedantic guy who points out your mistake and won't get off of your back until you demonstrate that you were correct or admit that you were in error.

[commonerX]

I have a good friend who is a fossil hunter. At least that is what he calls himself. He had a job where he had to deliver work to different peoples houses.

One lady he had, as a regular was very religiously narrow minded, to the point of trying to convince him almost on a daily occasion why he should believe. Being a Fossil hunter he saw things differently and tried to explain the evolutionary process to her.

She would not be convinced either. He asked her, how could you explain a fossil that has been carbon dated to 65 million years ago. Her answer, "God put those there so people like you would have something to do."

From that point on I realized that discussing evolution with creationist is pointless. No evidence would be sufficient to see any other possibility.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You stated that there are hypocrites here based upon creation being bashed here while it was supported in previous discussions. Give me one Freeper name who defended creationism in the past but is currently trashing Georgia for this decision. Just one, and you'll prove me utterly wrong.

From my very first post on this thread, I was talking about the general double-standard treatment of the some of the members of FR give to the south, and those insult on the first page of this thread is proof.

I already provided you a link that backs me up on the general double-standard treatment. You just want to bitch because you cannot stand it when someone holds a mirror up to your face and call you what you are.

[Dimensio]

From my very first post on this thread, I was talking about the general double-standard treatment of the some of the members of FR give to the south, and those insult on the first page of this thread is proof.

You were talking about hypocracy based upon the fact that people supported creationism in previous discussions. You have thus far not shown any hypocracy.

I already provided you a link that backs me up on the general double-standard treatment.

You haven't shown any double-standards at all. The same people who attacked creationism in the past are attacking it now and the same people who supported creationism in the past are the ones supporting it now (that is, those who haven't been banned for abuse). You just want to whine because you apparently have some sentimental feelings regarding Georgia and it's being pulled into the discussion and occasionally insulted because that happens to be where the incident has occured.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You haven't shown any double-standards at all.

Yes I have, you are just to blinded by your own arrogance to see it.

[whattajoke]

yeah, I know. To your post though, see my #87

[RightWingNilla]

Plenty - my degree was in molecular biology, and the science of human disease is basically problems at the biochemical/molecular level of cells. I don't have to believe in evolution as a means of origins to understand any of this.

I am stunned really. A major problem facing medicine is antibiotic resistance. Some bugs have acquired not only beneficial mutations but have evolved entire systems to evade certain drugs. Ever learn about vancomycin resistance? Please do not become one of these doctors that perscribes penicillin for the flu.

Furthermore, if you have had any experience with DNA sequence alignment and homology search programs you probably have noticed that nucleotide sequences of "ancient" genes (rRNAs, cytochromes etc) diverge exactly as evolutionary theory would predict. Is it all a huge coincidence? Can a reasonable person examine all of this data and not conclude common ancestry? What other hypothesis could possibly explain this?

[RightWingNilla]

So you admit your error. Good.

[Dimensio]

Yes I have, you are just to blinded by your own arrogance to see it.

No, you have't. You've asserted double-standards. You can't site a single (or two, as you would need for your proof) post to support your assertions. You just don't like the fact that not all FReepers think the way that you do -- since they don't act the way that you believe, they're hypocrites. It doesn't work that way. Bill Clinton would be a hypocrite if he spoke about the importance of marital fidelity, because it would be his own actions that contradicted his words. George W. Bush, however, would not be a hypocrite if he spoke on the importance of remaining true to your spouse even though Newt Gingrinch's conduct contradicted Bush's statement.

[commonerX]

Yes, I just read your post #87 and he statement sounds a lot like the that ladies answer as well.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I am talking about general reactions over part of a group and how the same situation generated two different reactions based soles on the difference of their locations. But then that is to complex for a simple mind like yours to grasp.

[js1138]

I am talking about general reactions over part of a group and how the same situation generated two different reactions based soles on the difference of their locations.

So link us some examples, or at least give us the post numbers.

[Dimensio]

I am talking about general reactions over part of a group and how the same situation generated two different reactions based soles on the difference of their locations.

Except that you've not shown two different reactions. The reaction to the current article is split between people saying that creation has no place in a science classroom and people bashing evolution. The reaction to the article that you referenced is split between people saying that creation has no place in a science classroom and people bashing evolution.

[realpatriot71]

My point about "beneficial" mutations was that science has not documented any beneficial mutations on the scale necessary to drive evolution from single-celled organism to the complex organisms we see today. We do see changes in allele frequencies as selection pressures cause creatures to turn on or off a given genes. And bacteria, by virtue of exponential growth are allowed to "experiment" with mutation, if you will, but an E. coli resistant or not is still E. coli. With all the interesting mutations of the prokaryote world, most of these mutation pertain to metabolism, and not the types of novel mutations required for evolution to run. These mutations are assumed, of course.

Perhaps the problems with biochemical processes do not bother you as they apply to origins, but the problem of making a cell from mere chemical soup, outside of a Creator is HUGE. So, in my mind if you cannot even get a single cell together without help, why should I now believe that life can evolve to more complex forms from the same cell that couldn't get itself started in the first place. This points back to a Creator. Personally, I do not use the Bible to point to science but rather look as science and see that it points back to God as described in the Bible. I'm not trying to "prove" anything wrong or right, merely point out that my position is not "crazy," but has it's own rational basis - which you, of course, may reject - but your rejection at this point is really an opinion based upon belief in the science as you understand it, and I've got no problem with that.

[Ben Chad]

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.

I wouldn't go that far as long as the class is called "Comparative Religion."

[Paul C. Jesup]

The reaction to the current article is split between people saying that creation has no place in a science classroom and people bashing evolution.

Yet you turn a complete blind eye to the insults towards the South on this thread.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Just start on the first post of this thread and start reading, you cannot miss them.