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.
Teach history.
Well, it's not just automatic, is it? The issue is deliberately framed in those terms by the Hovind-style Creationists. Who then come crying that they don't get no respect, and even worse, when they go to college, their kids don't get no respect.
No duh? Funny about that.
Like Scientology, pholgiston, vitalism, and that thunder is caused by Thor's hammer, or that thunder is the echoes of the God's kegling (not to mention the canoodling of Mother Earth and Father Sky.)
Theories with no explanatory power should be reserved for history classes. There's barely enough time to teach people basic science as it is.
p.s. I am apologizing in advance for taking a few minutes of your time this morning. I know how you evos have been working so hard lately trying to defend Charlie's dogma against us Creationist folk. It shows in your responses: "we've defended this a million times"; " Creationists are ignoring the evidence!"; Creationists are being dishonest!"; "How dare they question us!"
i
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis.
Index to Creationist Claims. Exhaustive list.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. From Scientific American.
300 Creationist Lies.
Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution.
-----------------------------------------
"Instead of pretending there is no debate over Darwin’s theory we should use it to further educate students about the scientific controversy surrounding evolutionary theory.”
-----------------------------------------
Minnesota’s Opportunity to Improve Teaching of Evolution and Avoid Extremes Should Not be Missed
It is actually misleading to say that a bacteria has gained resistance to an antibiotic agent when it actually has lost sensitivity to it.
Let me address this a little. (clarifying for myself mostly)
First we are talking about bacteria as a species (not as a single bacterium). Secondly the species does not 'change' due to exposure to any anti-biotic, the anti-biotics only effect is to kill those members of the species that are already susceptible to that agent. The surviving members of the species were already resistant to that agent.
Bacterial resistance to drugs has no relation to evolution. The species is not evolving it is just losing genetic diversity.
Evolution is an ongoing species change in response to environment. This species could be said to be de-evolving, but could not be said to be evolving
This can be equated to the plagues that struck Europe in the middle ages. Humans didn't evolve to be resistant to the plague, the ones who were susceptible just died off. We are the same now as we were then.
Be patient. There are changes in the works. If you're interested in making a difference, here's a good read:
This is the type of misunderstanding that needs to be countered. There are other mechanisms for acquiring resistance. Failure to understand these can be deadly. When Creationists continue to push incorrect mechanisms (such as the one quoted), they contribute to the spread of dieases rather than being helpful. This is one practical reason to work against their anti-science agenda (and the associated anti-science agendas of the postmoderns, new-agers, etc.)
An introduction to some of the resistance mechanisms can be found here.
d->Irrelevant to evolution.
a->pontaneous generation,
d->Also irrelevant to evolution.
I disagree D. Eventually evolution demands a first 'thing' that everything evolved from. Where did that first thing come from? (Spontaneous generation?) And where did the materials come from that allowed that first thing to 'spontaneously generate? (Big Bang?)
If the evolutionist scientists deny either of these then they have to come up with another explanation of how life started.
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.