Georgia Takes on 'Evolution'

NY Times ^ | 1/30/04 | Andrew Jacobs

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

A proposed set of guidelines for middle and high school science classes in Georgia has caused a furor after state education officials removed the word "evolution" and scaled back ideas about the age of Earth and the natural selection of species.

Educators across the state said that the document, which was released on the Internet this month, was a veiled effort to bolster creationism and that it would leave the state's public school graduates at a disadvantage.

"They've taken away a major component of biology and acted as if it doesn't exist," said David Bechler, who heads the biology department at Valdosta State University. "By doing this, we're leaving the public shortchanged of the knowledge they should have."

Although education officials said the final version would not be binding on teachers, its contents will ultimately help shape achievement exams. And in a state where religion-based concepts of creation are widely held, many teachers said a curriculum without mentioning "evolution" would make it harder to broach the subject in the classroom.

Georgia's schools superintendent, Kathy Cox, held a news conference near the Capitol on Thursday, a day after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article about the proposed changes.

A handful of states already omit the word "evolution" from their teaching guidelines, and Ms. Cox called it "a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction." She added that people often associate it with "that monkeys-to-man sort of thing."

Still, Ms. Cox, who was elected to the post in 2002, said the concept would be taught, as well as "emerging models of change" that challenge Darwin's theories. "Galileo was not considered reputable when he came out with his theory," she said.

Much of the state's 800-page curriculum was adopted verbatim from the "Standards for Excellence in Education," an academic framework produced by the Council for Basic Education, a nonprofit group. But when it came to science, the Georgia Education Department omitted large chunks of material, including references to Earth's age and the concept that all organisms on Earth are related through common ancestry. "Evolution" was replaced with "changes over time," and in another phrase that referred to the "long history of the Earth," the authors removed the word "long." Many proponents of creationism say Earth is at most several thousand years old, based on a literal reading of the Bible.

Sarah L. Pallas, an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University, said, "The point of these benchmarks is to prepare the American work force to be scientifically competitive." She said, "By removing the benchmarks that deal with evolutionary life, we don't have a chance of catching up to the rest of the world."

The guidelines, which were adopted by a panel of 25 educators, will be officially adopted in 90 days, and Ms. Cox said the public could still influence the final document. "If the teachers and parents across the state say this isn't what we want," she said, "then we'll change it."

In the past, Ms. Cox, has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools.

"I'd leave the state out of it and would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories," she said at a public debate.

Educators say the current curriculum is weak in biology, leading to a high failure rate in the sciences among high school students across the state. Even those who do well in high school science are not necessarily proficient in the fundamentals of biology, astronomy and geology, say some educators.

David Jackson, an associate professor at the University of Georgia who trains middle school science teachers, said about half the students entering his class each year had little knowledge of evolutionary theory.

"In many cases, they've never been exposed to the basic facts about fossils and the universe," he said. "I think there's already formal and informal discouragements to teaching evolution in public school."

The statewide dispute here follows a similar battle two years ago in Cobb County, a fast-growing suburb north of Atlanta. In that case, the Cobb County school board approved a policy to allow schools to teach "disputed views" on the origins of man, referring to creationism, although the decision was later softened by the schools superintendent, who instructed teachers to follow the state curriculum.

Eric Meikle of the National Center for Science Education said several other states currently omit the word "evolution" from their science standards. In Alabama, the state board of education voted in 2001 to place disclaimers on biology textbooks to describe evolution as a controversial theory.

"This kind of thing is happening all the time, in all parts of the country," Mr. Meikle said.

Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, the author of a 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences titled "Science and Creationism," vehemently opposes including the discussion of alternative ideas of species evolution.

"Creation is not science, so it should not be taught in science class," said Dr. Ayala, a professor of genetics at the University of California at Irvine. "We don't teach astrology instead of astronomy or witchcraft practices instead of medicine."

But Keith Delaplane, a professor of entomology at the University of Georgia, says the wholesale rejection of alternative theories of evolution is unscientific.

"My opinion is that the very nature of science is openness to alternative explanations, even if those explanations go against the current majority," said Professor Delaplane, a proponent of intelligent-design theory, which questions the primacy of evolution's role in natural selection. "They deserve at least a fair hearing in the classroom, and right now they're being laughed out of the arena."

[FoxInSocks]

"We don't teach astrology instead of astronomy or witchcraft practices instead of medicine."

Interesting point.

[AppauledAtAppeasementConservat]

"Even those who do well in high school science are not necessarily proficient in the fundamentals of biology, astronomy and geology, say some educators."

Here's what this educator actually meant:

"Even those students who sufficiently comprehend the theories behind evolution aren't considered proficient by certain educators who believe that anyone regardless of their understanding and knowlege of the above mentioned theories that hold any personal religious beliefs that are contrary to these theories is biased and therefore incapable of meeting the expectations of the secularist professors prefer to determine the capabilities of their students not on their ability to perform the expected skills or educational standards but rather on their personal beliefs"

Try getting an "A" in geology after a certain "educator" over hears you saying "Thank God I was able to get all those specimens catalogued before the finals!" to your buddy sitting next to you.

[plain talk]

A reasonable approach would be to teach the theory of evolution as just that - a theory - and distinquish macro evolution from micro evolution. They could also teach there are competing theories of creationism but state that they will not teach them because thats the role of churches and gets into religion etc. If they would just teach the kids that there are opposing points of view, that there are theories but no one knows whose right etc and stop indoctrinating them with this evolution garbage - that would go a long way towards addressing this issue.

[eddie willers]

Seems like Georgia is getting tired of Alamaba's and Arkansas' educational systems getting all the attention. A republic needs an educated and informed citizenry -- these policies aren't helping anyone, least of all the United States.

Agreed.
I'm just glad I graduated from the DeKalb Co. (Georgia) school system in 1970 when you could still get a good education.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - But they can teach "naturalistic" science despite a multitude of indicators that it is insufficient to explain the universe and life.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Galileo was not considered reputable when he came out with his theory," she said......

in response to why she thought that the sun moved around the earth.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...distinquish macro evolution from micro evolution

What is the distinguishing feature? These are Creationist and not part of evolutionary theory.

[Dimensio]

A reasonable approach would be to teach the theory of evolution as just that - a theory -

Well, no one disputes that it is a theory. Just like gravity.

and distinquish macro evolution from micro evolution.

The "distinction" between "micro" and "macro" evolution is a creationist invention, nothing more.

They could also teach there are competing theories of creationism

There are? Name one. State how it can be tested, what predictions can be made from those tests and how it can be falsified.

but state that they will not teach them because thats the role of churches and gets into religion etc.

If a "theory' is entangled with religious beliefs of any sort, it's not a theory.

If they would just teach the kids that there are opposing points of view, that there are theories but no one knows whose right etc and stop indoctrinating them with this evolution garbage - that would go a long way towards addressing this issue.

Why not teach them that, thus far, only one scientific theory on species origins has been presented and that if anyone falsifies it and comes up with a better theory, they will win a Nobel Prize? That's far closer to reality.

[Virginia-American]

..They could also teach there are competing theories of creationism ..

Not without lying, they can't

Creationism and its stalking horse ID aren't theories in the scientific sense of the word. They are hypotheses, aka armchair speculation.

Specifically, they are vacuous - incapable of being tested. If we postulate a sufficiently powerful creator, then any arrangement of fossils and living organisms is possible. On the other hand, if we reason from evolution theory, we find that certain things must (or must not) be observed:

No fossil rabbits will ever be found in precambrian strata.

No mutation will be present in both chimps and baboons that is not also present in people.

And so on. Needless to say, the predictions of standard biology which have been tested have passed.

but state that they will not teach them because thats the role of churches and gets into religion etc.

See above. It's not a theory. It makes no predictions, there is no possible observation that can test it.

If they would just teach the kids that there are opposing points of view, that there are theories

It's not a theory.

and stop indoctrinating them with this evolution garbage

A biologist observes the same mutation in black bears and polar bears. He deduces that it must also be present in brown bears.

A creationist or ID-ist observes the same mutation in black bears and polar bears. He has no basis for making any predictions.

When experiment proves that the biologist was right, once again, how can you claim that creatoinism/ID is at the same level as standard biology? Until it starts making more, and more accurate, predictions about what to expect in fossils and experiments than the standard theory does, it has no business being taught in anything other than the history of science or rhetoric.

[AppauledAtAppeasementConservat]

It's really not up to you me or anyone else to decide the educational needs and desires of another states citizenry. That is their priority. Representative Government is just what it is in this case, representative of the people.

I don't see why they can't just leave the evolution theory untouched and teach it according to the science behind it. I don't think changing the language is doing anyone any favors but that's just a personal belief.

I personally don't care what they teach as long as they don't discriminate against any ones personal beliefs of those who understand the major theories and can meet the educational qualifications of understanding the science. Just because one has a personal belief in God and doesn't mean they can't truly comprehend the science geology, astronomy or biology even though their personal beliefs about God may differ from the science. There are Christians who are geologists and biologists and the like but don't mix personal beliefs with their work.

A personal belief in God isn't a handicap. If it is I would truly love for someone here to say that George Washington was handicapped because of his. Looks like he did a pretty good job by most historical accounts.

[AppauledAtAppeasementConservat]

"No fossil rabbits will ever be found in precambrian strata."

Ever hear of redistribution of sediments by water and other forces? Generally you won't find rabbit fossils in the precambrian strata...strata that has been well preserved from reworking forces is more accurate.

"No mutation will be present in both chimps and baboons that is not also present in people."

What about mutations that occurred after the humans split off of the primate branch to evolve independantly?

What about the prophecies in the bible...you know...the 'predictions' that were fulfilled and the accepted ages of the scriptures that predate those fulfillment.

Although I agree that creationism should not be taught as a scientific theory since it isn't generally accepted as one, I still don't think one's religous beliefs should be considered a qualifying factor if they can meet the educational and professional requirements of the science.

Expressing one's ignorance or personal beliefs is not the same as lying either. You make far too many assumptions and conclusions and yet you have boldly stated these assumptions as facts.

[Virginia-American]

Generally you won't find rabbit fossils in the precambrian strata...strata that has been well preserved from reworking forces is more accurate.

Not "generally", "never". There are many, many other examples, eg Devonian dinosaurs, Permian people, cambrian cows...

Me: "No mutation will be present in both chimps and baboons that is not also present in people."

You: What about mutations that occurred after the humans split off of the primate branch to evolve independantly?

Huh? 1) We're still part of the primate branch. 2) The possiblities are: a mutation in humans only, chimps only, or baboons only; a mutation in people and chimps, but not in baboons; a mutation in all three. The other cases (baboon + people but not chimp, baboon and chimp but not people) are impossible. This follows from the fact that people and chimps have a common ancestor that is not ancestral to baboons, combined with the fact that it is *extremely* unlikely that the sme mutation occured twice.

What about the prophecies in the bible...you know...the 'predictions' that were fulfilled and the accepted ages of the scriptures that predate those fulfillment.

I find these of practically no interest.

Although I agree that creationism should not be taught as a scientific theory since it isn't generally accepted as one, I still don't think one's religous beliefs should be considered a qualifying factor if they can meet the educational and professional requirements of the science.

I agree. Creationism/ID is not "generally accepted" as a theory, simply because it isn't a theory. Whatever they claim to believe, students shouldn't graduate unless they can explain why 99+% of biologists accept the standard theory.

Expressing one's ignorance or personal beliefs is not the same as lying either. You make far too many assumptions and conclusions and yet you have boldly stated these assumptions as facts.

I don't know which is more disgusting - knowing that Creationism/ID is not a theory, but lying that it is, or trying to change the content of science classes without even knowing the basic vocabulary of science.

What assumptions have I stated as facts?

[DeepDish]

I have a question. Are viruses living organisms/creatures? If a virus takes genetic material from another virus, which then yields a "new" virus with changed abilities to find and prosper in a wider range of hosts, is this evolution or creation.

[AppauledAtAppeasementConservat]

Generally you won't find rabbit fossils in the precambrian strata...strata that has been well preserved from reworking forces is more accurate.
Not "generally", "never". There are many, many other examples, eg Devonian dinosaurs, Permian people, cambrian cows...

I took you to task on a technicallity here. A good example is that there are rabbits in death valley as well as exposed precambiran strata that they can find homes in. To suggest on your first statement that rabbits will never be found in precambrian strata is technically innaccurate. I understood your original point on this but it is a fact that these strata can and are reworked and made the statement that generally you wont find rabbit fossils in precambrian strata. Generally here takes in account that the possibilty that precambrian strata could be reworked in such a way that it could contain fossils of a whole host of creatures. Never would apply to only strata that was not been reworked and only pure precambrian strata.

"Huh? 1) We're still part of the primate branch. 2) The possiblities are: a mutation in humans only, chimps only, or baboons only; a mutation in people and chimps, but not in baboons; a mutation in all three. The other cases (baboon + people but not chimp, baboon and chimp but not people) are impossible. This follows from the fact that people and chimps have a common ancestor that is not ancestral to baboons, combined with the fact that it is *extremely* unlikely that the sme mutation occured twice."

Extrememly unlikely is not the same as 100% impossible.

I didn't epect much from you on Bible Prophecy but it is a good point anyways.

Although I agree that creationism should not be taught as a scientific theory since it isn't generally accepted as one, I still don't think one's religous beliefs should be considered a qualifying factor if they can meet the educational and professional requirements of the science.

Agreed shouldn't be taught as a theory because the term 'theory' is often used loosely and not in it's proper context. I believe that because it is a theology subject and not apart of the scientific focus that is why it should not be taught as a scientific theory. Theology is a whole different subject in it's own right.

I don't know which is more disgusting - knowing that Creationism/ID is not a theory, but lying that it is, or trying to change the content of science classes without even knowing the basic vocabulary of science.

Here again you are assuming that someone is lying. Lying usually conotates intent to deceive. i.e. Intent. You can't automatically assume that someone is lying. Personally you and I agree on the fact that they shouldn't change the vocabulary of the science just to suite someone's level of comfort. I am a Christian but eveolutionary theory does not offend me. People have a choice to choose to be offended or not. If someone is too offended by a theory they should simply have the choice to not participate.

I can think of more than a few things than I find disgusting other than people practicing self representation. Like Patronization, Suppression and a whole host of other dictorial vices.

"What assumptions have I stated as facts?"

er...pretty much all of them. A concensus may determine what is factual however facts are always subject to ones personal viewpoint and revision based on further observations. I am not desputing the science on these subjects just your arrogant stances.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[CobaltBlue]

This would be funny if it were not so sad. The sad thing is people from that background feeling sorry for themselves because they get laughed at by the rest of us for being rubes, hicks, and dumbbunnies.

Hey, it's their kids. If they want their kids to be rubes, hicks and dumbbunnies, what are you gonna do?

Makes it that much easier for my kids to get ahead.

[CobaltBlue]

You think you don't get "A"s because you believe in God? That is the silliest excuse for being a mediocre student that I've ever heard.

[Mr. Quarterpanel]

Actually, it wouldn't.

If you fail to prepare students for college, how will they be be able to compete when they get there? If high schools in Georgia start changing the science curriculum, those that "benefit" from the revised study will be placed at a significant disadvantage when they sit for their SATs, or when they start chunking through their core science classes at (Insert Ivy League college name here).

Mind you, the impact of watered-down curriculum will not be seen for years. It will culminate with fewer Georgia students seen in the best schools, fewer getting science degrees, and a large percent dropping out due to their inability to come up to speed on studies due to their high school science inadequacies.

The whole idea of confusing students with competing theories (read: theology) is ridiculous. Science is science, it has rules, and ID does not, nor will it ever measure up.