Georgia School Board Requires Balance of Evolution and Bible

New York Times ^ | 8/23/02 | KATE ZERNIKE

[kattracks]

fter an angry debate among parents, Georgia's second-largest school district adopted a policy last night that requires teachers to give a "balanced education" about the origin of life, giving equal weight to evolution and biblical interpretations.

The district, Cobb County, had already come under attack this summer for attaching disclaimers to all science textbooks, saying that evolution "is a theory, not a fact," and should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." On Wednesday, a parent and the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit demanding that the disclaimers be removed. Yesterday, they vowed to amend the suit to ask the court to reverse the new policy.

Board members said they were not restricting the teaching of evolution or encouraging the teaching of creationism. The policy, they said, was simply a reflection of the district's philosophy of teaching a wide and objective range of ideas, particularly in discussing "disputed views of academic subjects, including the origin of species."

After the vote, Gordon O'Neill, a board member, led his colleagues in a prayer: "Heavenly father, we ask that you provide to all of us a clear understanding of our fellow man and an acceptance of a diversity of thinking. Amen."

Many parents at the board's packed meeting said the policy was a backdoor route to teaching religion in schools. They implored the board members not to adopt the policy, saying it would dilute the quality of science education and make graduates of the district, which is north of Atlanta, the laughingstock of college admission offices.

"The loud voices of the extremist few have drowned out the voice of the moderate majority," said Adele Marticke, who has two school-age children.

Paula Jackson, an elementary school parent, said, "It's deception and indoctrination."

But others urged the board to open the classroom to religious points of view.

"To deny there is a God is to stand on a building and deny there is a building," said Russell Brock, who described himself as an insurance salesman and a minister.

Rick Burgess, another parent, said: "Evolution is strictly a theory, and we don't think it should be taught as fact. It's fine if you don't teach creationism, but you ought to be able to open up discussion of it."

The fight over how to teach the origin of life has erupted in several angry spurts since John Scopes's 1925 trial for teaching evolution.

The Kansas state school board reinstated teaching evolution last year, after striking it from the science curriculum two years earlier. Still, conservatives on the board have promised to revive the issue, and a candidate for the board who opposes the teaching of evolution won a recent primary by a wide margin.

In Ohio, the state board of education is considering a science curriculum that would teach "intelligent design," which accepts some evolutionary notions about how species develop, but argues that God or a godlike creator must have been in charge of the grand plan.

Discussing the Cobb County policy informally over the last few weeks, board members said they were responding to the community's demand to teach a broader range of views in science classes.

About 2,000 parents had signed petitions objecting to the board's purchase of new science textbooks in the spring because the books taught evolution. The parents asked the schools to give equal time to creationism, and several school board members then asked the district's lawyers to write a policy that would allow discussion of theories beyond evolution but not violate the Constitution. The board's lawyers said the policy was not unconstitutional because it did not promote any religious view as right or wrong.

But some parents said the disclaimer and talk of balance and objectivity were simply code words for promoting creationism.

Jeffrey Selman, who is suing the school district, said science promoted critical thinking "Why do we need a disclaimer?" he said. "It's the backdoor into pushing religion in schools."

The policy adopted last night says that evolution "remains an area of intense interest, research and discussion among scholars," and so should be handled with objectivity.

Jay Dillon, a district spokesman, said teachers should teach "all sides of an issue" instead of just evolution.

"The board was concerned that this was the only theory being presented," Mr. Dillon said.

[Russell Scott]

Have these "educators" checked with scientist lately. Because of amazing advances in physics and biology, its a given that only a very intelligent force could have created the universe and cell life. Evolution is laughed at as being insanely absurd. Of course, maybe they are not really "educators", more like "indoctrinators".

[TightSqueeze]

Now if they could just somehow deal with that pesky problem of the earth not being in the center of the universe and only a few thousand years old... But hey, one out of three ain't bad and probably not worse than the rest of the nonsense they are taught.

[JediGirl]

bump

[JediGirl]

Evolution is laughed at as being insanely absurd.

Evolution is laughed at by fundamentalists as being insanely absurd.

[Moonman62]

What about all the other creation stories? I kind of like the Hindu ones with gods popping out of belly buttons and stuff.

[elephantlips]

Without bringing religion into the debate, there is NO proof for evolution from any part of the scientific community and there never has been. Secular science demands that scientific objectivity be the measuring rod: To be considered other than a "theory" all claims must be observable and repeatable in any laboratory. Evolution isn't. End of story.

[Physicist]

Without bringing religion into the debate, there is NO proof for evolution from any part of the scientific community and there never has been.

There's no "proof" of quantum electrodynamics, either, and yet it's the most quantitatively successful theory ever devised.

Is there evidence for quantum electrodynamics? You bet. Is there evidence for evolution? Plenty.

[Physicist]

Georgia's second-largest school district adopted a policy last night that requires teachers to give a "balanced education" about the origin of life, giving equal weight to evolution and biblical interpretations.

This ought to last for about a nanosecond in court.

[Physicist]

Evolution is laughed at by fundamentalists as being insanely absurd.

Evolution is laughed at by fundamentalists wielding power as being insanely absurd.

[elephantlips]

Well, that does it! Until you said "plenty" I was lost in my silly world of scientific reality. Now I realize what a ninny I was. Thank you for straightening me out.

[Physicist]

Do you think that there's no evidence for evolution? You at least think it is insufficient for you to accept the theory. What would count as sufficient?

[truenospinzone]

While I've got no problem qualifying evolution as a theory, creationism has absolutely no place in the classroom. It's not a scientific theory, its worth as an option can't be measured in any way, and it can't be argued in any but religious terms. More to the point, which creation myth gets the pick - Christianity? Why? Is it any more valid a possibility than the creation myths of any other religion? Stephen King opines in It that the world was created via the waste by-product of an ageless tortoise. Do we have to teach children the possibility of King's creation myth?

[elephantlips]

You cannot refer to evolution as science and then refuse the scientific methods. Unless there has been some phenomenal demonstration/discovery in the world recently of which none of us has read, it remains an unproven theory except in minds of evolutionists and I don't say that as an insult but a statement of fact. Where has any scientific recognized body declared evolution no longer a theory but fact?

[Physicist]

Unless there has been some phenomenal demonstration/discovery in the world recently of which none of us has read, it remains an unproven theory except in minds of evolutionists and I don't say that as an insult but a statement of fact. Where has any scientific recognized body declared evolution no longer a theory but fact?

Again with the talk about "proof". You cannot prove a scientific theory. Theories are conceptual models that tie facts together; there is no threshold of evidence beyond which a theory ceases to be a theory. For a "scientific recognized body" to declare any theory a fact would be contrary to the very notion of science. That goes for any theory you care to name: evolution, general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, the atomic theory of matter, and so on.

But as a quirk of language would have it, there is a fact of evolution. The quirk is that the term "evolution" means two quite different things: the change of species over time, and the spontaneous appearance of those changes through mutation and natural selection. The second is the Darwinian theory of evolution, to which you referred. The first is simply a raw fact about the universe that the Darwinian theory of evolution seeks to explain. This fact, unfortunately and confusingly, is also referred to by the term evolution. The truth of this fact (independent of the mechanism by which it occurs) is seen on the small scale by the careful observation of the change in the morphology of organisms and their genes over time; it is seen on the large scale by observing such changes in the fossil record.