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.
You are correct. There are school boards outside the South that have been subjected to this nonsense.
I have to believe in the theory of evolution to understand bacterial resistance? Hardly! The resistance phenomenon is not that hard to understand, you give a population with an exponential growth curve a selective pressure, and watch said organism either (1) die or (2) adapt and live.
Why would I presrcibe an antibitotic for a viral dz?
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?
I don't find evolution completely irrational. Science works with what it can. No other pure scientific hypothesis can currently explain what is objective. Although as a believer in Creation, I do believe in common ancestors, only these were fully formed ancestors.
For instance at the prokaryotic level we see adaption to selection pressures, even mutations that encourage metabolism of a different sugar. What you do NOT see are changes in metabolism that convert an anaerobe into an aerobe, nor do you see gram+ bacteria becoming gram- or acid fast. When we see mutations in bacteria the bacteria does not become a new bacterial species. With the exponential growth of bacteria, and their ubiquitous nature, I find it high amazing we have not documented a single instance. And on a larger scale, the kind of mutations that will get you from one phyla to the next, or even from one class to the next. The more complex and longter the reporduction period of an organism, the more detrimental any given spontaneous mutation is. I cannot think of a single beneficial human mutation. Even the kind of mutation that happens at the prokaryotic (metabolism change) level cannot be documented in higher forms of life.
False analogy. Creating a cell from base organic molecules is not the same as a cell reproducing itself imperfectly.
I disagree it is those same biochemicals that you so flippantly disregard that run reproduction of the cell. Once again, if these chemicals cannot even get together to make a cell, why am I to believe they can run a cell, let along carry on genomic information to future generations. If this does not bother you - fine.
Appeal to ignorance: "I don't know how it could happen, so it must be a Creator that did it."
It's not crazy to pick up a watch and assume it was made. I look at what is objective. Why should I assume that life with all of its order came together randomly, and once randomly together managed to evolve into rational thinking human beings.
Like I said, I'm not trying to "prove" anything right or wrong. Your assumptions are really no better than mine. You've got a system together that you think works well for your understanding of life the universe (and everything), and so do I. No cognitive dissonace here.
" Probabilities that life could have risen by itself, and furthermore that life could have made its way from single cell creatures to what we see to day. It all so highly unprobable as to be rediculous [sic], but we're here so it must have happened (QED?)" [snip]282 posted on 01/30/2004 1:37:21 PM EST by realpatriot71
Welcome to the never ending "Festival of Restrospective Astonishment" .....
The history of England is also so highly improbable as to be rediculous. And it certainly can't be reproduced in the lab. So I guess it never happened. Now that I think about it, everything is so unlikely, one must conclude that nothing ever happened.
Oh Lordy! And how exactly do you think they "adapt and live"?
I don't find evolution completely irrational.
Well thats a relief. Still I get the feeling it isn't quite enough of a "rational" explanation for you. I am at a loss to understand why not.
Although as a believer in Creation, I do believe in common ancestors, only these were fully formed ancestors.
You agree that the genetic evidence supports evolution but you still believe in fully formed ancestors? This is a head scratcher. Are you trying to say the creator created fully formed bacteria? Do you believe that modern day prokaryotes and humans have a common ancestor?
I think what I believe is what is called Intelligent Design: I think evolution did occur, guided by God's hand. I know that makes me a heretic in some circles.
We know that evolution occurs now: that's how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and cockroaches become resistant to bug spray.
My question about the Bible version was only half kidding, though - I know which one is easiest for me to read, but which is the most accurate translation? And why are there books and verses in the Catholic Bible that aren't in the Protestant Bible? (When I was a kid, I stayed in trouble for asking too many questions...)
Wildly off-topic, but the reason is as follows: after the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity (about 500 BCE), they wrote a great many religious books (in addition to the pre-Exilic books of the Pentateuch and the Prophets), and there was no definitive ruling as to which of them were included in sacred Scripture and which were not. About 250 BCE, the Jews living in Alexandria, Egypt (then a Greek-speaking country) prepared a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and they included many of these then-recent books. Later, in around the year 150 CE, the Rabbis met in the town of Jabne in Israel and made a definitive (for Jews) ruling on which books would be considered part of the Jewish Bible, and which wouldn't. (Most of the post-exilic books were excluded, but a few made the cut.)
The Catholics accept everything in the Alexandrian Greek version (called the Septuagint) to be part of the Old Testament. Jews and Protestants accept only the books accepted by the rabbis at Jabne.
The mutation in feline leukemia virus that allowed the virus to sometimes infect dogs.
Thank you! Good explanation! There are also different verses in the New Testament, are there not?
I think so but, as a Jew, I am far more knowledgeable about the OT than the NT. I will let one of the Christians respond to that one.
Your heart heart, soul, and mind cannot fully develop while you have that gun.
Guns make people violent, evolution makes them socialists.
How odd. I wonder why a well-known creationist website (Institute for Creation Research) publishes this article:
DARWIN'S INFLUENCE ON RUTHLESS LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM.
The influence of the nutty SoCal anti-capitalist environment?
(Just to provide a change from the "Georgia-bashing")
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.