Evolution Challenged in Georgia School Debate

Voice of America ^ | 29 August 2004 | Kate Sweeney

[PatrickHenry]

It's a simple scientific concept, and perhaps one of the most complex issues in culturally conservative parts of the nation. And nearly eight decades after a teacher in Tennessee went on trial for talking to his class about Darwin's ideas, talk of evolution has taken center-stage in Georgia's public classrooms. Two years ago, the School Board of Cobb County, near Atlanta, voted to place a sticker in the county's science textbooks.

"The disclaimer says, 'This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered,'" says attorney Michael Manely who represents a parent group from Cobb County, which has sued the school board, demanding the disclaimer be removed. The group says the county is trying to force religion into the schools.

Cobb County education officials deny that claim, but with countless theories about everything from galaxy formation to cell communication - Mr. Manely is skeptical. "There are well over 5,000 theories that I'm familiar with. So of these 5,000 possible scientific theories: Why has the school board chosen to disclaim only evolution?"

Cobb County Schools declined to comment on the matter, but others were happy to speak out.

"Well, I think the sticker is appropriate," says Barrett Duke, the Vice-President for Public Policy of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I think it's appropriate for students to understand that evolution is a theory; It is not fact."

Mainstream scientists, however, do recognize evolution as a fact, based on fossil records and other biological evidence. They reject the concept put forward by one group of evolution opponents, known as Intelligent Design Theory. Its underlying premise is: if there's a creation, there must be a creator.

For Sarah Pallas, a science professor at Georgia State University, Intelligent Design is not so much a competing theory as a distraction. "I liken these groups, such as Discovery Institute, to schoolyard bullies that are pushing their way to the head of the line," she says. "They don't do laboratory science. They don't spend their millions in private donations on test-tubes or DNA analysis machines, they spend it on their PR machines, pushing on uneducated school board members, to get their ideas into the classroom."

The Discovery Institute, the conservative think-tank [ARRRRGHHH!] behind Intelligent Design, says it does not endorse the theory's inclusion in school curriculum, only the presentation of "scientific weaknesses" it sees in Darwinian evolution.

But there is a moral imperative for conservative groups to get involved in public education matters, according to Graham Walker, a theology professor at Mercer University. He points to what some see as a lack of moral foundation in today's public schools. "We have not provided a basis the way the old 17th and 18th century schooling systems provided it: Whereby you would discuss: 'How should I live?'"

Moreover, the upsurge in the evolution controversy comes as conservative religious groups like the Southern Baptist Convention are facing a more palpable crisis: Barrett Duke says, they're losing followers. "There's no question that many Christian young people are going out to public school and they're coming out much different than their parents had expected them to come out!"

The SBC says that by the time they are 18 years old, nearly 90-percent of the children raised in evangelical homes have left the church, never to return. The attrition problem has Southern Baptist leaders so concerned that earlier this year, prominent members of the church asked their national convention to consider a resolution that would have called on Southern Baptist parents to remove their children from the nation's public schools.

Georgia State science professor Sarah Pallas agrees that U.S. public schools are in real trouble but for exactly the opposite reason than that voiced by the Southern Baptists: not discussing scientific topics like evolution is leading to a decline in test scores and the quality of education and economic potential. "We are losing out on our dominance in this area, in science and technology, and the top scientists, the top-notch discoveries, are now not located in this country anymore, they're located overseas. This is going to be a real economic cost to the state, and to the nation," she says.

But those fears are not shared by conservative Christian leaders like Barrett Duke. "For those of us who believe that God really did create the world," he says, "it seems to me that it would be appropriate to at least give a nod in God's direction!"

Earlier this summer, the State Education Board adopted science curriculum standards based on the goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. As classes resume in Georgia, public schools will be held to those standards, which include the teaching of evolution and its related concepts.

The case regarding the disclaimer stickers in Cobb County could go to trial as soon as October.

[PatrickHenry]

Note how The Discovery Institute is described as a conservative think tank.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping! This list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and maybe other science topics like cosmology.
See the list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail me to be added or dropped.

[js1138]

This is slightly off-topic, but has anyone read Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy?

[Cboldt]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

Well, that seems to be factual. Evolution is on stronger footing when examining a change from one living thing to a similar living thing, than it is when examining a change from dead/inanimate things to a living thing.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution is on stronger footing when examining a change from one living thing to a similar living thing, than it is when examining a change from dead/inanimate things to a living thing.

True. Evolution only concerns living things. Things that aren't alive don't evolve. They are, however, subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. But that's outside of evolution theory.

[Cboldt]

True. Evolution only concerns living things.

And the people who object to the disclaimer are arguing about something the disclaimer doesn't say.

[PatrickHenry]

And the people who object to the disclaimer are arguing about something the disclaimer doesn't say.

The people who want the disclaimer don't know what evolution is. But they don't like it anyway. Ignorant people shouldn't have their way in such matters.

[PatrickHenry]

Just so you'll know, there is currently an evolution thread under way in the religion forum: Vatican accepts evolution as fact. That's not news to us.

It has long been an unofficial policy of the evolution advocates that, as a matter of courtesy, we don't participate in religious threads to argue scientific issues, because many who enjoy the religion forum would regard our information as unwelcome, and possibly disruptive. It may be a double standard, but that's how it is. For myself, I plan to leave the religion forum's thread alone.

[Cboldt]

The people who want the disclaimer don't know what evolution is. But they don't like it anyway. Ignorant people shouldn't have their way in such matters.

Yeah. The disclaimer is a bit verbose. They could have made a more direct statement about the scope of evolution theory that everybody would agree with. "Evolution theory does not address the origin of life." I don't know if proponents of evolution have other agreeable statements, like whether or how plants and animals are related by evolution, etc.

[VadeRetro]

And the people who object to the disclaimer are arguing about something the disclaimer doesn't say.

Indeed we are. The disclaimer isn't directed at any theory but the theory of evolution. It's obvious what's going on here, given the kind of charlatans pushing this thing.

[PatrickHenry]

It's obvious what's going on here, given the kind of charlatans pushing this thing.

From the article:

But those fears [about a decline in education] are not shared by conservative [ARRRRGHHH!] Christian leaders like Barrett Duke. "For those of us who believe that God really did create the world," he says, "it seems to me that it would be appropriate to at least give a nod in God's direction!"

That's what the disclaimer is intended to be.

[VadeRetro]

That's what the disclaimer is intended to be ["a nod in God's direction].

And what's the problem with that?

• The USSC says "No religion as such in public schools."
• A lie by indirect slur on the truth as best we know it is not a nod in God's direction if God is anything like what I've been told.

[Long Cut]

""The disclaimer says, 'This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."

In this one "disclaimer", they reveal their utter ignorance about the TOE, and science in general.

In the first place, they repeat the common (wrong) misconception about what a scientific theory is. In the second, they continue to ignore the fact that evolution does not study the origins of life itself.

This "disclaimer" was obviously written by the same people pushing for it.

As you said, PH, those too ignorant to understand what they are talking about should not have any say in its presentation.

One sincerely hopes that the students, in their science classes, are being taught what a scientific theory REALLY is, and what evolution does and does not adress. If so, the need for a "disclaimer" is moot.

Were I teaching science there, I'd use the "disclaimer" itself as a teaching tool, to show how badly some scientific things are misunderstood.

[Physicist]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.

Wrong. Evolution is a theory AND a fact. The theory of evolution is that variations are passed on to offspring, and selected by relative reproductive success. The fact of evolution is that allele frequencies change over time, and have throughout the history of life on Earth. The theory may or may not be correct--the evidence for it is extremely strong--but the fact is irrefutable.

[muir_redwoods]

It's a good point to ask why, of all theories, only evolution gets a disclaimer. Would a disclaimer be necessary to present the theory of gravity, the atomic theory or even game theory?

They are all theories, that is, they describe a situation and can be used to develop testable answers. They differ from hypotheses which are simply educated guesses based on observation.

[longshadow]

The SBC says that by the time they are 18 years old, nearly 90-percent of the children raised in evangelical homes have left the church, never to return. The attrition problem has Southern Baptist leaders so concerned that earlier this year, prominent members of the church asked their national convention to consider a resolution that would have called on Southern Baptist parents to remove their children from the nation's public schools.

So, instead of looking in the mirror to figure out what's driving so many young people out of their church, they point the finger of blame at an external imfluence they can demonize, rather than face the specter that being out of touch with reality might be the reason why so many young people are quitting.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution is a theory AND a fact. The theory of evolution is that variations are passed on to offspring, and selected by relative reproductive success.

We could point out that Darwinian evolution isn't the only theory out there which attempts to explain the fact of evolution. There was Lamarckism, derived from the work of the French scientist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck, who explained the mechanism of evolution by teaching that transformation of species occurred as the result of many individuals simultaneously adapting to common environmental stimuli.

That was somewhat modified (I don't know the details) into the doctrine that characteristics acquired through environmental influences are inherited, advocated by Lysenko, which was official Soviet doctrine.

There is also the theory of improbable aggregation, which suggests that random atoms fly together from distant parts of the galaxy to generate new species. This theory is advocated by no one, but it is often presented by creationists when they are looking for a theory to ridicule.

[balrog666]

So, instead of looking in the mirror to figure out what's driving so many young people out of their church, they point the finger of blame at an external imfluence they can demonize, rather than face the specter that being out of touch with reality might be the reason why so many young people are quitting.

Nice. That reminds of when Rush advises the Demoncrats because he knows they will always be too stupid to take his advise.

[Hoplite]

There is also the theory of improbable aggregation, which suggests that random atoms fly together from distant parts of the galaxy to generate new species. This theory is advocated by no one, but it is often presented by creationists when they are looking for a theory to ridicule.

Aha! Finally - my life's purpose is revealed!

Hmmm... where to start.

Ah, I have it.

Since random particles can be collided and form new 'species' of particles, it must also hold that, for example, an Einsteinium atom and an isotope of Beryllium could also collide and form a new species, and that if a duck flew into a beaver, you'd get a platypus.

+ =

So unless you're willing to argue that the duck and the beaver aren't made of atoms, here we have a clear cut case of atoms flying together and forming a new species.

Now then, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wait by the phone for the Nobel Committee's call.