GEORGIA E-WORD CONTROVERSY The Truth About GA's Biology Curriculum
Superintendent Cox Addresses Concerns About Proposed Science CurriculumOriginally published in Georgia Department of Education 1/28/04
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/doe/media/04/012804.asp [document has been removed]Atlanta 1/28/04 - At a new conference that took place at 3:00 PM on Thursday, January 29th, Georgias State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox addressed the misconceptions about the draft of our states new Georgia Performance Standards Biology Curriculum.
The Georgia Department of Education (DOE) has received many inquiries concerning some of the terminology used in our proposed biology curriculum under the new Georgia Performance Standards.
Superintendent Cox said, We want to invite the public to read the actual document, which is in draft form and available for public comment and review, on our website at www.gadoe.org. During this time of public input, we are using the feedback of our teachers, students, parents, and members of the public to help us make final revisions to the proposed curriculum, which will be up for approval by the State Board of Education in May. If the public wishes that changes be made, we will do so.
Examples of Evolutionary Concepts in the Proposed Biology Curriculum [see below]
Those who read the draft of the science curriculum will find that the concepts of Darwinism, adaptation, natural selection, mutation, and speciation are actually interwoven throughout the standards at each grade level. Students will learn of the succession through history of scientific models of change, such as those of Lamarck, Malthus, Wallace, Buffon, and Darwin.
They will become scientifically literate by learning the process of scientific inquiry and seeing the way science changes as a result of new discoveries and theories.
They will become familiar with the development of living organisms and their changes over time, including inherited characteristics that lead to survival of organisms and their successive generations.
And they will be prepared for college by having been exposed in detail to the models that the scientific community currently embraces.
Why, then, is the word itself not used in the draft of the curriculum, when the concepts are there? The unfortunate truth is that "evolution" has become a controversial buzzword that could prevent some from reading the proposed biology curriculum comprehensive document with multiple scientific models woven throughout. We don't want the public or our students to get stuck on a word when the curriculum actually includes the most widely accepted theories for biology. Ironically, people have become upset about the exclusion of the word again, without having read the document.
-------------
Examples of Evolutionary Concepts in the Proposed Biology Curriculum
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/curriculum/instruction/012804_evolution.pdf [this still works]
You can read the complete draft of the curriculum and find more examples at www.gadoe.org.
SB2. Students will understand how biological traits are passed on to successive generations.
g. Students will describe the relationships between changes in DNA and appearances of new traits including:
- Mutations
- Environmental Influence
Benchmark
Ecosystems can be reasonably stable over thousands of years. As any population of organisms grows, it is held in check by one or more environmental factors: depletion of food or nesting sites, increased loss to increased numbers of predators, or parasites. If a disaster such as flood or fire occurs, the damaged ecosystem is likely to recover in stages that eventually result in a system similar to the original one. Like many complex systems, ecosystems tend to have cyclic fluctuations around a state of rough equilibrium. In the long run, however, ecosystems always change when climate changes or when one or more new species appear as a result of migration or local changes over time.
SB3. Students will be aware of the dependence of all organisms on one another and their environments.
d. Students will evaluate the survival of organisms and suitable adaptive responses to environmental pressures.
Language students should use: Predator-prey, symbiosis, competition, ecosystem, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, oxygen cycle, population, diversity, energy pyramid, consumers, producers, limiting factor, competition, decomposers, food chain, biotic, abiotic, community, variable, evidence, inference, qualitative, quantitative.
Benchmark
There are historical scientific models of change, such as those of Lamarck, Malthus, Wallace, Buffon, and Darwin. Evidence from fossil, molecular biology, and anatomical structures suggest relationships among organisms. As climatic conditions change, organisms that do not adapt die off; those organisms suitably adapted survive. Over time, the proportion of individuals that have advantageous characteristics will increase. Heritable characteristics can be observed at molecular and whole-organism levels in structure, chemistry, and behavior. Natural selection leads to organisms that are well suited for survival in particular environments. Chance alone can result in the persistence of some heritable characteristics having no survival or reproductive advantage for the organism. When an environment changes, the survival value of some inherited characteristics may change.
SB7. Students will be familiar w/the development of living organisms and their changes over time, including inherited characteristics that lead to survival of organisms and their successive generations.
a. Students will relate the nature of science to the progression of historical scientific models of change over time.
b. Students will relate reproductive isolation to speciation.
c. Students will compare selective breeding to natural selection and relate the differences to agricultural practices.
Language students should use: fossil record, geologic record, molecular evidence, homologous, vestigial structures, mutation, recombination, hierarchy, natural selection, adaptation, evidence, speciation, biodiversity.
Ignorance excludes evolution
GUEST COLUMN
By REED A. CARTWRIGHT
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
January 28, 2004
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0104/28evolution.htmlLast month, Merck & Co. chose North Carolina over Georgia for the site of a new vaccine manufacturing facility.
In making its decision, the pharmaceutical giant cited the more highly skilled workers in our neighboring state.
This month, the Georgia Department of Education released drafts of the proposed science standards for k-12 public school education.
These standards are supposed to be "stronger" and the foundation of a "world-class curriculum." Sadly they verge on being a joke.
The Georgia DOE has gutted biology education by removing the very basis of modern biology, more than likely for sectarian politics. Instead of enlightening opponents of modern science through education, DOE will perpetuate ignorance through silence. We do not compromise history education for those who deny the Holocaust; why should we compromise biology education for those who deny evolution?
As the foundation of our state's draft standards, Georgia DOE utilized the Project 2061 benchmarks, which were formulated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Instead of strengthening these national benchmarks to create a truly world-class curriculum, the DOE has weakened them by removing sections concerning the history of life, common descent, human origins, the role we play in the ecosystem, the Big Bang, the age of the Earth and other topics.
The pattern is clear, and the pseudoscientific sympathies our governor and state school superintendent expressed during their election campaigns now threaten our state's educational and economic future.
Georgia DOE has even eliminated the mere mention of "evolution" in the biology standards and is sorely mistaken to think that entering college freshmen are not expected to know what evolution is.
The best biology teachers will still prepare their students properly for college. But most teachers will choose to teach only the state standards, which means the majority of Georgia's high school students will graduate with a weak science education.
What students know when they get out of high school directly affects what they know when they get out of college. The more time spent in college learning things that should have been learned in high school, the less chance to succeed and the less time to prepare for employment after college. Thus, compromising k-12 science education directly compromises the economy of Georgia.
At a time when the state is desperately trying to court the biotech industry, these science standards encourage companies to look elsewhere. Merck was not the first company to bypass Georgia and surely will not be the last if we fail to adopt a truly world-class curriculum.
Complete adoption of the AAAS benchmarks, including the sections that ignorance finds controversial, is the best and easiest way for the state to proceed at this point. With such improved standards the high-tech companies will come to us instead of us going to them.
The Georgia Department of Education needs to hear from the people that these proposed standards are not world-class and that the complete adoption of the AAAS benchmarks is needed.
Reed A. Cartwright is a doctoral student in genetics at the University of Georgia.
Georgia may shun 'evolution' in schools
Revised curriculum plan outrages science teachersBy MARY MacDONALD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
January 29, 2004
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.htmlGeorgia 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.
Evolution change just a suggestion, Cox spokesman says
The Associated Press - ATLANTA
Associated Press, via AccessNorthGA
2004/01/29
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=30571A change that would strike the word evolution from Georgias science classes is only a suggestion and far from becoming official policy, a spokesman for state schools Superintendent Kathy Cox said Thursday.
Coxs proposal for new middle and high school science standards would ban references to evolution and replace it with the term biological changes over time.
The whole point for us is we really dont have a stance on the issue, said Cox spokesman Kirk Englehardt. Were very open to hearing every side of the issue.
The proposed change is part of more than 800 pages of revisions to Georgias curriculum that have been posted on the Department of Education Web site for educators to consider.
The new curriculum -- which is expected to be voted on by the state Board of Education in May -- will replace standards adopted in 1984 that have been criticized by many educators as shallow.
Educators criticized the proposal by Cox -- a Republican elected in 2002 -- saying science teachers understand the theories behind evolution and how to teach them better than politicians or education bureaucrats.
The curriculum was created by practitioners who teach the subject and know whats needed, said Jocelyn Whitfield, a government specialist with the Georgia Association of Educators. It would be of great concern, particularly to science teachers, if, without their knowledge, thats been changed.
Scientists consider evolution the basis for explaining the differences among plants and animals.
I think its a step backward, said state Rep. Bob Holmes, D-Atlanta, chairman of the House Education Committee. Here we are, saying we have to improve standards and improve education, and were just throwing a bone to the conservatives with total disregard to what scientists say.
Englehardt said the concept of evolution would still be taught under the proposal, but the hot-button word would not be used.
The subject matter is there, he said. The word is not.
That lead some social conservatives -- who prefer religious creation to be taught rather than evolution -- to criticize the proposal as well.
If youre teaching the concept without the word, whats the point? said Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, easily one of the legislatures most socially conservative members. Its stupid. Its like teaching gravity without using the word gravity.
A spokesman for Gov. Sonny Perdue declined to give a detailed comment on the issue.
On a controversial issue like this, it is probably appropriate to have the open, public dialogue Superintendent Cox has called for, said Perdue spokesman Dan McLagan.
Englehardt said Cox would not be available to comment on the issue Thursday.
The proposed change would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution.
Georgia plans to make 'evolution' extinct
School official wants to revise middle, high school science standardsMARY MACDONALD
Cox News Service
Charlotte Observer
2004/01/29
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/7821987.htmATLANTA - Georgia students could graduate from high school without learning much about evolution, and may never even hear the word 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."
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?"
Cox: 'Evolution' a negative buzzword
State schools superintendent defends purge of word from proposed biology curriculumBy MARY MacDONALD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1/30/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/30evolution.htmlState Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox said she removed references to evolution from the proposed biology curriculum because it is "a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction."
Cox, fielding questions at a news conference Thursday, defended her decision to remove the word "evolution" from the curriculum. She said it was not designed to appease Georgians who have religious conflicts with the scientific theory that all living things evolved from common ancestry.
"This wasn't so much a religion vs. science, politics kind of issue," Cox said. "This was an issue of how do we ensure that our kids are getting a quality science education in every classroom across the state."
She said students need to understand that science is constantly changing and they need to be exposed to all legitimate theories.
Cox said that could include the teaching of "intelligent design," though it is not specifically mentioned in the proposed curriculum. Most scientists deride "intelligent design" -- the idea that life arose through a purposeful design by a higher being -- as junk science. But Cox described it as a scientific theory that could be discussed in science classes.
"That is a scientific theory," she said. "Now people say, 'Oh, those folks, they're kook scientists.' But it does have scientists, rather than theologians, talking about other ways we may have come into being."
Cox said that concepts related to evolution -- including natural selection, adaptation and mutation -- would still be in the curriculum. But scientists argue their inclusion in the teachings doesn't mean much if they aren't tied together through a coherent discussion of evolution.
Decision angers many
The superintendent's decision to replace references to evolution with "biological changes over time" in the proposed curriculum for middle and high school science has drawn fierce rebukes from some state legislators, scientists and teachers, who say it is an embarrassment for the state and will weaken the education of Georgians.
As of Thursday evening more than 1,000 people, including parents, teachers and professors, had signed an online petition objecting to the curriculum change.
The state based the biology curriculum on benchmarks put forward by a respected national source, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But while Georgia educators copied many sections, such as the nature of cells and inherited characteristics, they deleted most of the standards relating to the origin of living things.
The biology standards are being revised as part of a massive overhaul of the state curriculum designed to have teachers concentrate on critical subject areas. The yearlong process of revising the standards included teachers, college professors and curriculum specialists.
The new curriculum is to be voted on in May by the state Board of Education after public comment. Cox said changes are likely to be made based on public input.
The superintendent, a former social studies teacher, said the new curriculum would not prohibit teachers from taking a deeper approach to evolution or any other topic.
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.
Critics say excluding the term "evolution" could prompt teachers to avoid the topic. The state's current biology curriculum does include evolution.
Scientists say biology is a gateway course to future studies of the life sciences.
And most scientists consider evolution the basis for biology, a scientific explanation for the gradual process that has resulted in the diversity of living things.
Cox's reference to evolution as a "buzzword" rankled professors who say it is a widely supported scientific explanation for the diversity of life and something students should understand.
And the superintendent's mention of intelligent design sparked criticism by scientists who say it is religion masquerading as science.
"There is no science or evidence behind it," said Carlos Moreno, an assistant professor in the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at Emory University. "It is an attempt to take the creation story from Genesis and make it into science."
'It's a slippery slope'
If the proposed curriculum is adopted, it would be a national embarrassment for Georgia, Moreno said. "It's going to institutionalize poor education in science in this state."
Even some parents who have criticized the teaching of evolution as dogmatic say the state has erred with this new proposal.
Larry Taylor, who has challenged the teaching of evolution in Cobb County, said the proposal doesn't go far enough in detailing arguments against evolution.
"The new standards do nothing but water down the terms used to propagate the same old one-sided arguments, without challenging the students to think critically and examine for themselves if the claims are even true," said Taylor, who has three children. Sen. Connie Stokes (D-Decatur) denounced the proposal on the Senate floor Thursday.
"I'm concerned School Superintendent Kathy Cox has taken this position," Stokes said. Students will be lost in college biology classes if they don't know the terminology, she said.
"It's another obstacle placed in front of our kids. It's a slippery slope," Stokes said. "This is a much, much bigger issue than what we believe personally."
Staff writer Rhonda Cook contributed to this article.
----------
YOUR TURN
Which term do you prefer?
- Evolution 83.80% 5697
- Biological changes over time 16.20% 1101
This survey is not a scientific sampling and does not reflect the opinion of the general public, but only of those who choose to participate.
The Word 'Evolution' Has Become a Firestorm in Georgia
A move to delete it from a proposed high school curriculum is decried by scientists and teachersBy Ellen Barry, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times
2004/01/30
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evol30jan30,1,252125.story?coll=la-headlines-nationATLANTA &emdash; Georgia's state school superintendent on Thursday defended deleting the word "evolution" from a biology curriculum proposed for high school teachers, calling it "a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reactions."
The plan, which also omits topics such as Charles Darwin's life, fossil evidence and the emergence of single-celled microorganisms, has angered educators. Under the proposed curriculum, Georgia educators would no longer be required to devote much time and effort to teaching evolution.
Superintendent Kathy Cox said the word "evolution" could keep some people from considering the new curriculum. She added that the changes were meant to take pressure off teachers "on the front lines."
If the curriculum is adopted, most teachers will skim over the subject, which remains unwelcome in many parts of the state, educators warned Thursday.
"This is a real infringement on the freedom of teaching, and it has serious implications," said David Bechler, head of the biology department at Valdosta State University.
The state's science curriculum specialist, Stephen Pruitt, said the word "evolution" would not be banned in the classroom. He recalled debates about evolution when he taught science, and said he hoped the new plan would allow students to draw their own conclusions about the evidence for evolution. "I personally believe we are dissecting the theory of evolution to look at the pieces of it," Pruitt said.
By Thursday, almost 1,000 people, including parents, teachers and scientists, had signed an online petition demanding restoration of the omitted sections. Cox said that the department was seeking public comment on the proposed curriculum and that final revisions could be made before the State Board of Education votes on it in May.
A handful of states avoid using the word "evolution" in teaching plans, replacing it with euphemisms such as "biological adaptation" or "change over time." Georgia, however, would be the first state to remove the word "evolution" from teaching plans after including it for years, according to the National Center for Science Education, a California organization that tracks anti-evolutionary teaching.
The revised curriculum was a major initiative for Cox, a Republican elected to the post in 2002. For six months, panels of educators met to fine-tune the new curriculum and agreed to adopt most of the topics recommended by the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.
But the final version eliminated much detail about the origin of life, including Gregor Mendel's identification of genes, the appearance of primitive life forms 4 billion years ago, and the long-term dynamics of evolution. In its place is a statement listing five "historical scientific models of change" that includes the sole mention of Darwin. The word "evolution," used nine times in the original document, disappears entirely, and is replaced by the phrase "change over time."
Bechler, who participated in developing the curriculum, said he was astonished to discover that the passages had been eliminated. He said cutting the curriculum could seriously hurt the understanding of science.
There are, however, large sections of Georgia where evolution has never been fully accepted.
Susan McKinney, who teaches biology to high school students in Crisp County, said she had never believed Earth could have come into existence without a divine hand. Neither do her students, and neither do her colleagues, said McKinney, who has taught for 26 years.
McKinney said she believed in natural selection, but when her course touched on the fossil record and single-celled organisms believed to be among the first life forms on earth &emdash; information she considers a "tentative hypothesis" &emdash; she skims over it, recommending that students study the material independently if they wish.
"I can tell you, being in rural south Georgia, that it's kind of loose where you go and how far you go" in the teaching of evolution, said McKinney. "We don't go all the way down to how we came out of the primordial ooze."
Georgia has lagged behind other states in the teaching of evolution. In a 2000 report, retired physicist Lawrence Lerner classified Georgia among the 13 states that had received an F, failing "so thoroughly to teach evolution as to render their standards totally useless."
Much of the trend can be attributed to social pressure, said Gerald Skoog, former president of the National Science Teachers Assn. Statewide standards can insulate teachers, he said. "Teachers would tell me, 'It offers a shield of protection when I can point to the standards and indicate that evolution needs to be covered,'" Skoog said.
In Atlanta, an area that draws hi-tech workers and out-of-state academics, one scientist admitted his primary reaction was acute embarrassment.
"I hope we don't have to change the word 'chemistry' to 'the movement of molecules across space' next," said John Avise, a genetics professor at the University of Georgia. "I'll have to rewrite a lot of my texts."
Georga takes on evolution
By ANDREW JACOBS
New York Times
January 30, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/education/30GEOR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5062&en=442347ae564b42d7&ex=1076043600ATLANTA, Jan. 29 &emdash; 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."
Statement: Jimmy Carter on Evolution
WXIA-TV (Atlanta)
2004/01/30
http://www.11alive.com/help/search/search_article.aspx?storyid=42289Read the full statement from former U.S. President and Georgia native Jimmy Carter regarding a recent proposal to remove the word evolution from textbooks in Georgia's public schools, as submitted from The Carter Center:
"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students. Her recommendation that the word "evolution" be prohibited in textbooks will adversely effect the teaching of science and leave our high school graduates with a serious handicap as they enter college or private life where freedom of speech will be permitted."
"Nationwide ridicule of Georgia's public school system will be inevitable if this proposal is adopted, and additional and undeserved discredit will be brought on our excellent universities as our state's reputation is damaged."
"All high school science teachers, being college graduates, have studied evolution as a universal element of university curricula, and would be under pressure to suppress their own educated beliefs in the classroom."
"The existing and long-standing use of the word "evolution" in our state's textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians' belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe. There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat earth in order to defend our religious faith."
"Fortunately, it is the responsibility of the State Board of Education to make the final decision on the superintendent's ill-advised proposal."
Deanna Congileo
Director, Public Information
Press Secretary,
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter
The Carter Center
One Copenhill 453 Freedom Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30307
Phone: (404) 420-5108
Fax: (404) 420-5145
E-mail: dcongil@emory.edu
Jimmy Monkeys with Evoluton Foe
New York Post/Reuters
January 31, 2004
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/45372.htmATLANTA - Former President Jimmy Carter yesterday blasted a top Georgia education official's bid to strip the word "evolution" from textbooks in some of the state's public schools. Kathy Cox, Georgia's school superintendent, has come under fire for suggesting that science books used in the state's middle and high schools carry the term "biological changes over time" instead of "evolution."
Carter said he was embarrassed by Cox's proposal and accused her of attempting to censor and distort the education of Georgia students.
"Nationwide ridicule of Georgia's public school system will be inevitable if this proposal is adopted," Carter said. Carter served as Georgia's governor from 1971-1975 and has often spoken of being a born-again Christian.
Cox said her proposal, which requires the approval of Georgia's Board of Education, was designed in part to take pressure off teachers facing objections from conservative parents who favor the teaching of creationism over evolution.
In the past, Cox has praised parents who wanted Christian ideas of human creation to be taught in schools.
Carter Criticizes Schools Chief on 'Evolution' Plan
Los Angeles Times
2004/01/31
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-na-briefs31.2jan31,1,3866735.story?coll=la-news-learningPresident Carter, a practicing Christian, assailed a top Georgia education official's bid to strip the word "evolution" from textbooks in some state schools. Kathy Cox, Georgia's school superintendent, has been criticized for suggesting that science books used in the state's middle and high schools carry the term "biological changes over time" instead of "evolution."
In a rare public criticism of an elected official, Carter accused Cox of trying to censor and distort students' education.
"Nationwide ridicule of Georgia's public school system will be inevitable if this proposal is adopted," he said in a statement.
Evolution furor heats up
Critics, including former President Jimmy Carter, say state looks sillyBy MARY MacDONALD
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
04/01/31
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/31evolution.htmlGeorgia political leaders said Friday that they're embarrassed that the state is at the center of a furor over evolution.
Former President Jimmy Carter said the state school superintendent's efforts to remove references to evolution from science curriculum standards will handicap students and damage Georgia's reputation.
"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students," the former president declared. "Nationwide ridicule of Georgia's public education system will be inevitable if this proposal is adopted."
Cox, who could not be reached for comment on the issue Friday, proposed editing out the word "evolution" as part of a massive revision of the state teaching curriculum. The teaching plans for high school biology and sixth-grade Earth science would replace references to "evolution" with "biological changes over time," a phrase that scientists describe as meaningless.
A spokesman for Cox responded to Carter by saying, "We respect his opinion, as we do all Georgia citizens. We want Mr. Carter, as well as Georgia citizens, to understand we're not imposing a ban on evolution from textbooks or the classroom."
At the state Capitol, some lawmakers denounced the proposal Friday.
"You're talking about a major change in public education in Georgia," said Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor, a Democrat. "It appears Superintendent Cox finds the word 'evolution' too controversial to be discussed. She prefers a more nebulous term."
State Rep. Bob Holmes (D-Atlanta), chairman of the House Education Committee, said the proposal will make Georgia look foolish on a national scale. "We have one black eye from the flag. This will give us another black eye," he said.
Holmes said he couldn't understand why the argument over evolution is continuing. "It seems to me this thing had been resolved 70 years ago during the Scopes monkey trial," he said. In that landmark trial, in Tennessee in 1925, Clarence Darrow defended high school teacher John Scopes in the first court case to pit the theory of evolution against the biblical story of creation.
Although legislators may get no vote on whether Cox's decision stands, Holmes noted that the House and Senate "provide funds for everything they do."
Gov. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, has tried to stay out of the fray, saying it's not his place to get involved.
"I trust the superintendent and the [state] Board of Education," Perdue said in an interview. "The superintendent is perfectly capable of making those kinds of curriculum decisions."
Derailing concepts?
In defense of the revised curriculum, Cox said this week that "evolution" is a "buzzword" that has the potential to derail teachers' efforts to teach the major concepts of biology. At a news conference Thursday, she said she wanted to avoid inviting public misconception about evolution instruction in the public schools.
"By putting the word in there, we thought people would jump to conclusions and think, 'OK, we're going to be teaching the monkeys-to-man sort of thing.' Which is not what happens in a modern biology classroom," Cox said.
Cox, a Republican elected in 2002 to the state's highest school post, said the proposed curriculum covers all the essentials for teaching evolution without using the word itself. And teachers are still free to use the word in their classrooms, she said.
The standards include lengthy sections on the nature of science, genetics, heredity and other aspects of biology, all lifted from benchmarks set by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But the revised curriculum does not include most of the national benchmarks on the evolution of living things. Omitted are the explanation of natural selection -- how organisms with inherited advantages are more likely to survive and reproduce -- and statements such as "Life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago."
Jo Ellen Roseman, director of the AAAS' benchmark program, said Georgia's proposed biology curriculum is "a significant improvement" in most areas but flawed in regard to evolution. She said she expects scientists, educators and the business community to push for stronger standards for evolution in the final draft of the new curriculum.
After a period for public comment closes in March, Cox said, she will reconvene advisory committees of teachers and curriculum experts. The superintendent's final recommendation is to go to the 13-member state Board of Education in May.
A healthy debate
Several state school board members said Friday that they would not publicly voice their opinion on the changes until the public comment period ends. But some, including board Chairwoman Wanda Barrs, a former middle school science teacher, said the debate is healthy.
"Conversations about this are not threatening to me," said Barrs, who taught evolution and used the term in her classroom. "I felt confident enough in my personal beliefs and also in scientific data to be able to communicate the scientific data and not be threatened by it."
Peggy Nielson, a board member from southwest Georgia, said the existing curriculum is inadequate. She emphasized that the draft is only a proposal. "It is not adopted. And it needs careful scrutiny by all academics and individuals concerned with students being productive citizens in the 21st century," she said.
Religious leaders also weighed in on the controversy.
Pastor William Sheals of Hopewell Baptist Church in Norcross suggested that a true Christian cannot believe in evolution.
He said evolution -- and creationism -- should be taught in public schools to help students understand science. But don't remove the word "evolution" from the curriculum and pretend that you're not still teaching it, Sheals argued. "You're still teaching the fact that man evolved from an ape."
Rabbi Hillel Norry of Shearith Israel, a Conservative Jewish synagogue in Atlanta, called the proposal to remove references to evolution absurd.
"This is an effort to force the public to conform to the ideas and comfort level of only one segment of the population: those that are biblical literalist," Norry said.
Staff writers John Blake, Rhonda Cook, Dana Tofig, Tom Walker and Maria Saporta contributed to this report.
SIDEBAR:
CURRICULUM ONLINE
The proposed Georgia curriculum for kindergarten through grade 12 can be viewed at this site. There is an online form for people to offer feedback.
SKIPPED STANDARDS
Georgia copied almost all the biology standards developed by the American Association for the Advancement for Science. These sections related to evolution were left out of the state's proposed curriculum:
Introduction that was omitted
History should not be overlooked. Learning about [Charles] Darwin and what led him to the concept of evolution illustrates the interacting roles of evidence and theory in scientific inquiry. Moreover, the concept of evolution provided a framework for organizing new as well as "old" biological knowledge into a coherent picture of life forms.
Points that were omitted
The basic idea of biological evolution is that the Earth's present-day species developed from earlier, distinctly different species.
Molecular evidence substantiates the anatomical evidence for evolution and provides additional detail about the sequence in which various lines of descent branched off from one another.
Natural selection provides the following mechanism for evolution: Some variation in heritable characteristics exists within every species; some of these characteristics give individuals an advantage over others in surviving and reproducing; and the advantaged offspring, in turn, are more likely than others to survive and reproduce.
The theory of natural selection provides a scientific explanation for the history of life on Earth as depicted in the fossil record and in the similarities evident within the diversity of existing organisms.
Life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago. During the first 2 billion years, only single-cell microorganisms existed, but once cells with nuclei developed about a billion years ago, increasingly complex multicellular organisms evolved.
Evolution builds on what already exists, so the more variety there is, the more there can be in the future. But evolution does not necessitate long-term progress in some set direction. Evolutionary changes appear to be like the growth of a bush: Some branches survive from the beginning with little or no change, many die out altogether, and others branch repeatedly, sometimes giving rise to more complex organisms.
Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science. To read the entire document, go to Diversity of Life at http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/ch5/ch5.htm#DiversityOfLife
Proposed new science standards: Where's the e-word?
by Michael Matthews
Answers in Genesis
31 January 2004
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0131eword.asp'Georgia takes on "evolution"' trumpets the New York Times. 'Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools,' warns the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Here we go again. Another US state is embroiled in controversy over the teaching of evolution. Will it ever end?
At issue
Georgia's broad education standards (passed in 1984) need improvement, and so a year ago, the state's newly elected school superintendent initiated a major overhaul. A panel of experts adopted the new Standards for Excellence in Education, produced by the nonprofit Council for Basic Education, with a few modifications.
The problem is that the proposed 'modifications' include replacing the word evolution with 'biological changes over time,' and removing (or rewording) references to Darwin, human origins and the age of the earth.
Evolution is an emotional 'buzzword'--says Georgia's school superintendent
Georgia school superintendent, Kathy Cox, appears to have been surprised by the media backlash. Nothing appeared in the media when she first released the draft of the education standards on 12 January, inviting public comment.
The alarm bells went off on Thursday, 28 January, when The Atlanta Journal-Constitution printed a major article that opened, 'Georgia students could graduate from high school without learning much about evolution, and may never even hear the word uttered in class.'1
L.A. Times, New York Times and others picked up the story. By 3 p.m., superintendent Cox decided to hold a news conference to set the record straight.
She explained that the standards expect students to learn all about the processes of evolution, that the tentative standards have just removed the word evolution, because it is 'a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction.'
In a web response, called 'The truth about GA's [Georgia's] biology curriculum,' the education department stressed,
'Those who read the draft of the science curriculum will find that the concepts of Darwinism, adaptation, natural selection, mutation, and speciation are actually interwoven throughout the standards at each grade level. Students will learn of the succession through history of scientific models of change, such as those of Lamarck, Malthus, Wallace, Buffon, and Darwin.
'They will become scientifically literate by learning the process of scientific inquiry and seeing the way science changes as a result of new discoveries and theories. …
'Why, then, is the word itself not used in the draft of the curriculum, when the concepts are there? The unfortunate truth is that "evolution" has become a controversial buzzword that could prevent some from reading the proposed biology curriculum comprehensive document with multiple scientific models woven throughout. We don't want the public or our students to get stuck on a word when the curriculum actually includes the most widely accepted theories for biology. Ironically, people have become upset about the exclusion of the word again, without having read the document.'2
'Graduates will be unfit for college'&emdash;says the backlash
'A national embarrassment for Georgia,' an assistant professor at Emory University suggested.3
The proposed standards 'would make it harder to broach the subject in the classroom,' warned the New York Times.4
'Teaching biology without evolution is like teaching chemistry without the periodic table,' said one letter to the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.5
College-bound Georgia students won't get advanced placement credit for biology, 'regardless of test score,' insists a biology advisor at the University of Georgia, in a letter to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editor.6
The ugly attacks follow an expected pattern, almost like it's the 'party line.'
The real problem
It's amazing how hard it is to get the real story, when it comes to debates about teaching evolution in public-school classrooms.
What are they hiding?
To be honest, in the various state debates (see Q&A: Education), both sides often appear unwilling to lay out all the facts, goals and biases that they bring to the table.
On the one hand, state curriculum developers don't publicize the fact that they want to leave room for the teaching of 'intelligent design theory' (see AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement) as an alternative to evolution. They don't admit the obvious&emdash;that they have reworded direct references to the anti-Christian, anti-biblical concepts of molecules-to-man evolution and 'billions of years as fact.'
On the other hand, the evolutionary zealots are even more unwilling to lay it all on the line. They won't admit that the teaching of millions of years of death before Adam is not science, but an interpretation of history based on unsupported assumptions, and it directly attacks the integrity of God's Word and its authority over our lives. Such honesty isn't popular in conservative 'Bible belt' states like Georgia.
Worse, the evolutionary zealots are guilty of 'equivocation,' failing to admit that there are two popular meanings of evolution: (1) 'biological change over time,' which scientists on every side of the debate have always accepted, and (2) the formation of completely new creatures over millions of years, converting primordial soup into prime ministers.
It's the second meaning of evolution that open-minded educators simply don't want to be taught as fact.
Just teach students how to think.
Everyone recognizes the challenges that Christians face in changing how evolution is taught in secular classrooms. Educators are terrified of being labeled as 'religious zealots' (as they already have been in this incident).
But the answer is not just to remove the word evolution.
Education is supposed to teach students how to think, so they need to be exposed to all the facts, along with the assumptions required to interpret the facts.
So, obviously, it's important for students to learn the whole history and philosophy behind 'Darwinian evolution,' which has had such a powerful impact on Western civilization, reaching far beyond the laboratory to every area of the culture (see Darwin's real message: Have you missed it? and Culture wars: Bacon vs Ham).
It's just as wrong to pretend that goo-to-you evolution is 'fact'/'science' as it is to argue that evolution is a mere 'buzzword' or a 'neutral' topic.
No, all students need to recognize the vast difference between operational science, which deals with the 'here and now' and can be repeated in experiments, and historical science, which depends on assumptions about events that we cannot observe or repeat (see 'It's not science').
Teach about evil, don't hide it.
The Bible itself emphasizes the need for Christians to be 'wise as serpents.' God's Word never glosses over evil, but exposes it for what it is (including its logical consequences). Moreover, the Scriptures command Christians to be ready to give answers, which is a major theme of AiG (1 Peter 3:15).
Therefore, AiG believes that all students, whether studying at home, private school or secular government schools, should learn the details about evolution. We simply argue that students should get the whole truth, so that they can evaluate the claims of evolutionists intelligently.
It is our contention that the facts make a whole lot more sense when interpreted from the Bible's framework of history, rather than from the 'millions of years' framework (see Creation: 'Where's the proof?' and Searching for the 'magic bullet'). So why restrict students from essential data and interpretive tools (including biblical history) which have been foundational to the rise of modern science in the West (see The Creationist Basis for Modern Science)?
References and notes
1. MacDonald, M., Georgia may shun 'evolution' in schools: revised curriculum plan outrages science teachers, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, <www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html>, 29 January 2004.
2. Georgia Department of Education, The truth about GA's biology curriculum, <www.doe.k12.ga.us/doe/media/04/012804.asp>.
3. MacDonald, M., Cox: 'evolution' a negative buzzword, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, <www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/30evolution.html>, 30 January 2004.
4. Jacobs, A., Georgia takes on 'evolution,' New York Times, <www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/education/30GEOR.html>, 30 January 2004.
5. Doyle, S., The final straw, under Reader opinions at www. ajc.com <www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/letters.html>, 29 January 2004.
6. Palevitz, B., Key point of biology, under Reader opinions at www. ajc.com <www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/letters.html>, 29 January 2004.
Perdue: 'E' word belongs in curriculum
He jumps into fray over evolution vs. 'changes over time'By JIM THARPE
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2004/02/01
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/01evolution.htmlGov. Sonny Perdue said Saturday the word "evolution" should stay in the curriculum used for Georgia students, his first effort to quell a firestorm of controversy swirling around a volatile blend of religion and science.
"If you're going to teach evolution, you ought to call it evolution," the Republican governor said during an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "By that I mean, there ought to be a balance. Evolution, as I understand it, is an academic theory. I think it should be taught as an academic theory."
The governor sought to end a dispute surrounding last week's proposal by state School Superintendent Kathy Cox to replace the word "evolution" with "biological changes over time," a phrase that scientists describe as meaningless.
Perdue's comments, his first definitive statement on the issue, came just after he addressed the Georgia Christian Coalition's Families & Freedom Kickoff at Mount Vernon Baptist Church in Atlanta. The governor did not mention the controversy during his speech.
"The name is what it is, and we should call it that," Perdue said. "I think that Superintendent Cox . . . will listen to the people on these proposals. In this business you don't get the privilege of thinking out loud. And I think Superintendent Cox was thinking out loud."
Perdue said he had not "had the opportunity" to discuss the issue with the superintendent.
Cox, who was elected in 2002, last week proposed editing the word "evolution" from the curriculum as part of a massive revision of the state curriculum. She called the term a "buzzword" that poses a risk of derailing teachers' efforts to teach the major concepts of biology.
"By putting the word in there, we thought people would jump to conclusions and think, 'OK, we're going to be teaching the monkeys-to-man sort of thing.' Which is not what happens in a modern biology classroom," Cox said at a news conference Thursday.
Her proposal and follow-up comments enraged some lawmakers and academics and created a controversy that generated national headlines. Former President Jimmy Carter said if the proposal were adopted it would handicap students and damage Georgia's reputation.
"Nationwide ridicule of Georgia's public education system will be inevitable if this proposal is adopted," said Carter, a former Georgia governor.
At this point, Cox's proposal is just a recommendation. She plans to reconvene advisory committees of teachers and curriculum experts after a period reserved for public comment on the proposed curriculum changes closes in March. The superintendent's final recommendation is scheduled to go to the 13-member state Board of Education in May.
Perdue called for a balanced classroom approach when dealing with evolution, which he said must be taught as a theory.
"What concerns me is that many times you'll have teachers in the classroom with impressionable students who go beyond that and teach it as proven fact, and then go beyond that and ridicule students who would believe anything other than the theory of evolution," Perdue said. "I think we need to have to academic freedom, but we need academic balance as well."
State Rep. Bob Holmes (D-Atlanta), chairman of the House Education Committee, said he hoped Cox would back away from her evolution proposal now that Perdue has spoken on the issue.
"I agree with the governor, but I think Superintendent Cox has already contributed to giving the state another black eye on this," he said. "I hope she'll take the governor's words to heed. I think she'll realize her mistake."
Scientists decry 'evolution' deletion
By MARCIA LANGHENRY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
04/02/01
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/01evolside.htmlCalling the state school superintendent's proposal to remove the word "evolution" from state teaching standards "cataclysmic," scientists who spent a year crafting a statement on the importance of teaching evolution scrambled this weekend to add weight to their position.
Members of the Biology Academic Advisory Committee of the University System of Georgia met Saturday at Emory University with Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education to discuss the effects the change would have on Georgia and the ability of its high school graduates to compete and succeed.
Stephen Pruitt, state curriculum specialist for science, was invited but did not attend.
Deviations from the curriculum benchmarks of the American Association for the Advancement of Science also concern Sarah Pallas, associate professor of biology at Georgia State University. "This document works for someone who thinks dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries," Pallas said.
Wes McCoy, biology teacher at North Cobb High School, said, "When I first heard the word 'evolution' was being deleted, I had my suspicions. But now I believe it's to allow the teaching of intelligent design."
Defending the removal of "evolution" because it is a "buzzword," state School Superintendent Kathy Cox said Thursday that students need exposure to all legitimate theories, and that those could include intelligent design. That theory -- that life arose through a purposeful design by a higher being -- is usually derided by scientists.
GSCISE members said they would begin a letter-writing campaign and would contact legislators and clergy. "Evolution is the underlying framework for all of biology," McCoy said.
State stance on evolution a devolution into stupidity
OUR VIEW
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
04/02/02
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/02evolution.htmlEver try to listen to someone talk at a party but find yourself unable to focus because they have spinach stuck in their teeth? After describing evolution as a "controversial buzzword" and striking the term from Georgia's proposed curriculum, state School Superintendent Kathy Cox has spinach caught in her teeth. And nobody is going to hear another word she has to say about the new k-12 curriculum until she cleans it up. To do so, Cox has to stop acting like a politician and start acting like an educator.
The state was hanging its hopes for academic improvement on its long-awaited overhaul of the current curriculum that's been condemned as "a mile wide and an inch deep." Cox hired nationally renowned education experts, including Diane Ravitch and James Rutherford, and assembled a panel of teachers.
Now, by eliminating any mention of evolution from the resulting product, Cox has cast the integrity and the intelligence of the process in doubt and raised questions about her ability to provide the education leadership necessary to prepare Georgia students for an information economy.
As a former teacher in a high-performing district, Cox would never have permitted politics to compromise her McIntosh High School social studies class. Had she tried, the parents of Fayette County would have confiscated her chalk and sent her packing.
Fayette parents, like parents everywhere, want their children to be well educated. They want them enrolled in Advanced-Placement Biology, which, according to the College Board's Web site, requires students to devote 25 percent of their time to "heredity and evolution." They want them to get into Georgia Tech and Duke, and they want them to win jobs at the high-tech firms that the governor says are critical to Georgia's economic future.
Well, those high-tech firms are now looking toward North Carolina after Cox confirmed every stereotype about Southern ignorance with her explanation of why Georgia ought to teach evolutionary science without using the e-word itself. Instead, Cox advocates replacing "evolution" with "biological changes over time."
"The unfortunate truth is that evolution has become a controversial buzzword that could prevent some from reading the proposed biology curriculum comprehensive document with multiple scientific models woven throughout," says Cox.
Cox's irrational position is a sop to a handful of religious hard-liners who believe that schools should teach creationism, a belief born of faith rather than science. If faith replaces science as the standard in Georgia's classrooms, can we expect the banishment of globes from geography classes to placate the flat-Earth folks? Would alchemy be given equal time with chemistry? That seems to be the direction we're headed: backward.
An unopposable thumbs down for evolution
COMMENT
Euan Ferguson
The Observer
Sunday February 1, 2004
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1136413,00.htmlHating can be tiring. Hating can be hard, hard work. Having to wake up every morning and remember that you must spend your life loathing someone, or something, being constantly repulsed by one aspect of your or someone else's life, is surely so depressingly time-consuming that it could only properly be contemplated if you were either Alastair Campbell or Jimmy Savile's mirror.
So I think we should forgive Georgia, and the Georgians, whose state education officials have just announced, 79 years after the Scopes 'monkey trial', that the word 'evolution' is to be removed from the curriculum. It is, according to schools superintendent Kathy Cox, a 'buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction' and they'd quite like to retain the right to teach, instead, that God made the world in seven days - pausing only, according to one unaccountably underquoted passage from Hutton, at one point near teatime on Tuesday to take some sound advice on planning and strategy from a younger Tony Blair.
Too hard to hate them, and it's hard, too, to loathe a group of people quite so innocent in the ways of the world, so sweetly premodernist, that they can't yet do irony and thus fail, delightfully, to appreciate the rich layers lying behind the fact that the people in this world who are most fervently opposed to the idea of evolution are so often the same ones who will most benefit from it when, one fine day, they grow opposable thumbs.
I appreciate, too, that it can be mighty hard to go to the zoo, watch some blue-nosed simian whacking off in a bucket of dung and then make the instant link to humankind, unless, of course, you're visiting Cromer, but I have to assume that Darwin was absolutely right, if only because he had such a damn good beard.
So he was right, and the Georgian goons who want us to burst a few buboes, flatten out the globes and lurch back to happy old pre-Enlightenment days are thuddingly wrong, and yet I don't hate them, not them as such. I hate an abstract, instead. I hate the inevitability of it all, and I hate what man passes on to man.
Think about Georgia, modern Georgia. It has planes. It has toasters. It manages to encompass the most triumphant successes of civilisation, freedom, taste and beauty in one perfect modern package, ie cheerleaders. And it has people, running its schools, who weren't even born in the April of 1925 - when John Scopes was unsuccessfully prosecuted in Dayton, Tennessee, for teaching evolution - who now see this as a miscarriage of justice.
And this is the truly depressing bit: that some of us can come such a tiny way, after the greatest century of upheaval and progress this planet has known, and we can only blame the parents, and the very idea of family. How else do you explain a Glaswegian teenager, born around the time of John Major's accession and with no more real idea of Irish political history than he has of Peruvian nose-flute playing, kicking another near to death because of the colour of his shirt? How else do you rationalise white children in Oldham - just children, once babies, once ready to learn - growing up with such a hatred of anyone other-skinned that their town has become a byword for intolerance, mendacity and cant?
And, terrifyingly, I seem to have managed to argue myself quite around, and am beginning to doubt Darwin. The opponents of evolution need only stand up, and be counted, and let it be judged how much humanity has, truly, evolved. Maybe they have a point after all.
Evolution comments irk scientists
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/2/2004
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/02evolution.htmlGov. Sonny Perdue says he wants a "balanced" classroom approach to teaching evolution with an emphasis on its standing as "academic theory."
State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox says her proposed biology curriculum will allow teachers to present other scientific theories about evolution and specifically mentions "intelligent design."
Across Georgia, scientists cringed at the statements.
Sarah Pallas, an assistant professor of biology at Georgia State University, said Sunday that the public comments reveal an ignorance of science and mimic the arguments used by people who rebut evolution. Her views were shared by other biologists.
"He wants to insert religion into the science curriculum," Pallas said of Perdue's call for balanced instruction. "If there were other scientific theories about the diversity of life, scientists would be inserting them in class. That's our job."
Taking a position in the controversy for the first time, Perdue said Saturday that the word "evolution" should remain in Georgia's proposed science standards and not be replaced with the phrase proposed by Cox: "biological changes over time."
Nevertheless, the governor also seemed to express support for teaching alternate theories to evolution. A spokesman on Sunday refused to elaborate on the governor's statement.
"What concerns me is that many times you'll have teachers in the classroom with impressionable students who go beyond that and teach [evolution] as a proven fact, and then go beyond that and ridicule students who would believe anything other than the theory of evolution," Perdue said. "I think we need to have academic freedom, but we need academic balance as well."
In an interview shortly after his November 2002 victory, Perdue said he had "no problem" with children being exposed to creationism, evolution and other theories, but said the decision should rest with the local school districts.
Controversy over the teaching of evolution surfaced last week after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Cox proposed eliminating the word "evolution" from the middle and high school science standards. The proposal is part of a massive revision of state curriculum.
While traditional scientists may be repelled by any move to weaken the standing of evolution in state classrooms, such a shift would be embraced by some parents and others.
Many parents say they find it frustrating that public schools have ignored the challenges to evolution put forward by legitimate scientists. Larry Taylor, a Cobb County parent, wrote in a letter to Cox that the opposition is not a simple matter of creationists trying to get religion into the schools.
"The debate is really about the lack of supporting evidence for evolution, the censorship of dissenting scientist, religious intolerance, viewpoint discrimination, and the interjection of personal bias by science educators when instructing our children on the subject," Taylor wrote.
Charles Kelly, a former public school teacher who lives in Banks County, said many teachers shy away from teaching evolution because it is pushed in public schools without dissenting theories. The state's curriculum should go into greater depth in placing evolution under more critical evaluation, he said.
"Not all scientists are evolutionists," said Kelly, who now teaches in a Christian school.
Heidi Isom, who has two children in the Cobb system, said she agrees with the governor that students should be exposed to a balance of arguments. "[Evolution] is presented with far more weight upon it than it needs to be," she said.
Cox explained that she regarded "evolution" as a buzzword that causes negative reaction in communities, enough to derail teachers' attempts to teach the major components of biology. She identified "intelligent design" as another acceptable scientific theory about the origin of life.
Intelligent design holds that living things are too complex and diverse to have evolved through random mutation. Its proponents argue instead that life on Earth resulted from a purposeful design by a higher intelligence.
It is a belief, not science, said Pallas and other professors.
David Bechler, a biology professor and head of the department of biology at Valdosta State University, said the statements suggest a basic misunderstanding of science.
"I don't think they understand the definition of a theory," Bechler said. "You're talking about a statement that describes a body of data that has gone through testing and proving. The theory of creation, intelligent design, or whatever you might want to call it, has not been tested and should not be discussed in science classes. It's not the same thing."
The proposed biology curriculum draws on national standards, but includes a truncated version of required knowledge for students on evolution. This aspect of the revision has drawn less attention than the loss of the word "evolution" but is just as worrisome, say advocates for evolution instruction.
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, said the call for "balance" usually is an effort to introduce concepts that rebut evolution.
In a State That Will Live In Infamy
EDITORIAL
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/2/2004
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0202-09.htmGeorgia has ambitions of becoming the next big high-tech state, a new center of scientific achievement in fields ranging from cancer research to nanotechnology. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been committed to that effort, which our business and political leaders say is essential to the state's future prosperity. And the most important factor in the success of that effort will be our ability to recruit science-oriented companies and personnel to the state. Meanwhile, Georgia is removing the word "evolution" from its middle school and high school curriculum guide because it is deemed to be "a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction," according to the state school superintendent.
And it's not just the word that disappears: The proposed changes will also gut much of the instruction that would allow an understanding of evolution's underpinnings. Other changes are being made as well, including deletion of mention that the Earth has a long history, because such a statement conflicts with literal interpretations of the Bible claiming that the Earth is young.
Yeah, this move to high-tech is gonna work out just fine.
As of last week, news of our backslide into the 19th century had been published in newspapers all over the country, including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Kansas City Star and the San Jose Mercury News, which serves the center of the high-tech universe, Silicon Valley. Imagine the impact of that.
It is not merely that scientists will now be reluctant to bring their families to a state where their children will be miseducated, although that will hurt immensely. It is not merely that company executives will now be leery of depending on a work force produced by such schools, although that, too, will be damaging. More fundamentally, they will be wary of an overall political climate so clearly hostile to science and to scientific methods and inquiry.
Kathy Cox, the state school superintendent ultimately responsible for this fiasco, has tried to defend the changes as somehow consistent with science, since it opens up the curriculum to supposed challengers to Darwinian evolution. As she points out, science and scientific theories must always remain open to criticism, challenge and if necessary to revision.
However, that struggle for truth can and must take place within science itself. Notions such as "intelligent design" and creationism have failed to make any headway within real science because they fail fundamental scientific standards of logic and consistency. As a result, those who believe in those theories have tried to move their struggle for acceptance out of science and into the political world, where they can make more progress.
Within science, Darwinian evolution is not controversial or considered under serious challenge, and hasn't been for a century. Evolution is real, it is observable and can be documented. In fact, adaption through competition can be seen in other aspects of life as well, such as economics.
In an increasingly global economy, Georgians will face more and more direct competition for jobs and profits, a competition in which once again the fit will thrive and those less adaptable will suffer. We already know that we will not be able to compete with places such as China for the low-wage, low-skill work that has long sustained Georgia, and will have to instead rely on superior education and knowledge-based skills to maintain our standard of living. That's why the move to high tech is considered so important.
And yet last week, as Georgia was pretending that the word "evolution" was too controversial to mention, scientists in China were announcing that they had documented how the SARS virus had twice evolved -- excuse me, had "changed biologically over time" -- as it migrated from animals to human beings.
You think about something like that and you realize: If they're right about the survival of the fittest, we're in a mess of trouble.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.
Evolution proposal endangers AP credits
Contributed by Valerie Lake
Red and Black
February 02, 2004
http://www.redandblack.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/02/401d8e8909cdaA proposal to remove the term "evolution" from the state's high school biology curriculum has some University professors concerned that high school graduates will be unprepared for college-level courses. State Superintendent Kathy Cox last week suggested replacing the word evolution with the phrase "biological changes over time" in her proposal to revise the state's curriculum.
Cox has called evolution a "buzzword" and said eliminating the word would make it easier for teachers to teach important biological concepts, a proposal that has University plant biology professor Barry Palevitz re-thinking course credit policy.
Palevitz, the head biology adviser, said if Cox's proposal is approved, he would recommend the University refuse to honor Advanced Placement biology credit from Georgia high schools regardless of the score.
He said the proposed curriculum changes are religiously motivated and will be a disadvantage to high school science students.
"There is no scientific alternative to evolution," Palevitz said. "Intelligent design deserves to be laughed out of the arena, because it's not science."
The likelihood of Cox's proposal being enacted diminished greatly Saturday when Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said if evolution concepts were going to continue to be taught, the name should remain the same.
"Evolution, as I understand it, is an academic theory," he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I think it should be taught as an academic theory."
Under Cox's proposal, anatomical evidence for evolution and natural selection would be omitted from the curriculum, and teachers would be allowed to discuss the concept of "intelligent design" as an alternative theory to evolution.
Thomas Koballa, a science education professor and department head, said Cox's proposal needed "careful consideration."
"Evolution -- and the terms and concepts that surround it -- are really at the heart of biology education," Koballa said.
Deepti Gupta, a senior biology and economics major from Jonesboro, called the changes "a travesty to our education system."
"It's a huge disservice to high schoolers who plan to go to college," she said. "Any college biology course teaches evolution."
Jonathan Gardner, a junior from Dunwoody, also criticized the proposed changes.
"I think (evolution) is a part of history and a part of science," he said.
Kathy Cox will submit her final proposal for school curriculum changes to the school board after a 90-day period for public comment that began in January.
The 13-member school board will vote on the proposed changes in March.
Proposed standards give science teachers leeway
GUEST COLUMN
By RANDY SINGER
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
04/02/02
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/02equal.htmlState Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox caused quite a stir recently when she proposed new statewide curriculum standards that replaced the word "evolution" with the phrase "biological changes over time." Given the reaction of her critics, you would think she had proposed overthrowing the government.
Lost in the fury is the true nature of what the new standards do. They replace mandatory statewide indoctrination with a trust in local science teachers. What's so wrong with that?
As superintendent, Cox makes clear that the standards do not prohibit teaching or testing about the theory of evolution. Claims that students will somehow graduate with an inadequate knowledge of Darwin's theory and its implications are really claims that local science teachers will only teach evolution if mandated by the state.
The irony of this position is readily apparent: Critics of the standards claim that evolution is the only generally accepted scientific theory that explains the origin of life. But they also claim that if we leave science teachers to their own devices, they will either ignore evolution or put too much stock in competing theories. Interesting.
If the proposed standards do not prohibit the in-depth teaching of evolution, then why is the criticism so strident? What critics apparently fear is that teachers might give credence to certain criticisms of macro-evolution or even acknowledge alternative theories about the origin of life, such as the intelligent design theory.
Survival of the fittest is a notion that the critics applaud in nature, but obviously abhor when applied to competing scientific theories in the classroom.
Though The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently claimed that "most scientists deride intelligent design," it is hard to ignore the Georgia Scientists for Academic Freedom, a distinguished group of scientists (including a Nobel Prize nominee) who weighed in on the Cobb County evolution debate.
It's been a while since my high school days, but the scientific method I learned about emphasized an unbiased analysis of competing theories by an objective evaluation of supporting data. The proposed new standards give both teachers and students the academic freedom to conduct such an inquiry about the origins of life.
Maybe things are different now. Maybe academic freedom should take a back seat to state indoctrination when it comes to evolution. Maybe the scientific method can no longer handle competing theories on a subject as basic as the origins of life. If so, biology is not the only thing that has "changed over time."
Randy Singer is the executive vice president of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Perdue's science views off balance
OUR VIEW
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/3/04
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/03gov.htmlGiven his background in veterinary science, Gov. Sonny Perdue should understand the critical distinction between the strong evidence that shores up evolutionary theory and the religious beliefs that support the tenet of creationism. Yet that understanding has been notably absent in the governor's comments regarding the teaching of evolution in state schools. While he has said he disagrees with the proposal by State School Superintendent Kathy Cox to remove the word "evolution" from the curriculum guide, he went dangerously beyond Cox by calling for "academic balance" in what's taught in our science classes.
"What concerns me is that many times you'll have teachers in the classroom with impressionable students who go beyond that and teach [evolution] as proven fact, and then go beyond that and ridicule students who would believe anything other than the theory of evolution," said Perdue. "I think we need to have academic freedom, but we need academic balance as well."
No teacher should ridicule a student's religious beliefs. But the real impact of what Perdue is proposing is to open up science classes to creationism under the guise of "academic balance." There's no balance between scientific theory and religious beliefs, not in a public school classroom. One hinges on what can be observed and tested. The other depends on faith in what can't be seen.
Yes, it is called the theory of evolution. But much of science outside of mathematics is in some sense theory. For example, it may only be theory that atoms are composed of protons and electrons, but it is unlikely that atomic theory will be supplanted by a better explanation.
In this evolution controversy, Perdue had what educators call "a teachable moment." Instead, he reduced it to a political opportunity.
Perdue tries both ways on 'evolution'
Colin Campbell
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2004/02/03
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/03colin.htmlIt's too soon to describe in detail how the fundamentalists and their appeasers attempted to hijack Georgia's biology curriculum. All we know for sure yet is that state officials met, heard that "evolution" was a no-no and, suddenly, the word vanished from what the state expects its students to learn.
Great hunks of related science and biology also vanished, including the concept of natural selection and the multibillion-year age of the Earth. The name Darwin wasn't obliterated, exactly, but he did get demoted: In the real world of science, Darwin is a giant; but in the backward-rushing world of Georgia education, he's just another scientific thinker, along with Lamarck, who became a byword for faulty theorizing.
Kathy Cox, the state's elected superintendent of schools, has said she takes full responsibility for the proposed changes. But her candor cries out for more. Who are Cox's experts on evolution? Why precisely does she feel the word excites fears in Georgia that "we're going to be teaching the monkeys-to-man sort of thing"? Does the same fear explain why she (or somebody) also deleted much larger pieces of evolutionary science from the proposed curriculum?
These are questions that need answers.
Meanwhile, where does Gov. Sonny Perdue stand on all this? So far, the signs are mixed at best.
The governor evidently feels there's a place for creationism in the schools. (In biology classes? Not clear.) The governor said soon after he was elected that he had "no problem" with kids being taught creationism, evolution and other theories but that local school districts should decide.
Last Thursday, Perdue said he trusted Cox and the Board of Education. "The superintendent," Perdue said, "is perfectly capable of making those kinds of curriculum decisions."
Then on Saturday the governor told a reporter that using the word "evolution" was OK and even desirable, but "there ought to be a balance." Perdue said he was concerned about teachers who go beyond teaching evolution as a "theory" and "teach it as a proven fact. ... I think we need to have academic freedom, but we need to have academic balance as well."
On Monday, I tried to phone Perdue but got through only to his spokesman, Dan McLagan. I told McLagan that Perdue's call for "balance" was hard to distinguish from the creationists' agenda. Knowing that the courts won't ban evolution, many politically active creationists have borrowed a leaf from the book of tolerance and rationality, and they've asked for "equal time" and "choice" and "balance" -- including the teaching of creationism and "intelligent design" in science classes. Did the governor know this when he called for "balance"?
McLagan equivocated.
Pressed for Perdue's own views on evolution, McLagan said the governor understands that evolution is "the basis for our modern biology." But when asked whether Perdue agrees that the Earth is over 4 billion years old, McLagan replied that he didn't know.
The question is relevant because the likely age of the Earth (one of the benchmarks in biology recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) has been censored from the state's proposed curriculum.
Clearly, the governor is trying to have it both ways. This is leadership?
Darwinists eager to avoid debate
GUEST COLUMN: EVOLUTION
By LARRY TAYLOR
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/3/04
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/03evolve.htmlLast year, in public comments before the Cobb County Board of Education, I witnessed firsthand the danger that can come when personal opinions and philosophical or religious prejudices are allowed into the science classroom. I was shocked as Cobb County public school teachers stood at the podium and made the absurd claim that evolution is an absolute proven fact that is no longer disputed by reasonable, educated people.
Further, these teachers went on to denigrate anyone who held an opposing viewpoint as "uneducated," "illogical," "radical" and my all time favorite, "right-wing extremists."
I left that meeting vowing to protect my children from the obvious bias and open hostility that was exhibited by the teachers in attendance.
Now that Georgia school Superintendent Kathy Cox has proposed new science standards that de-emphasize the terminology used to explain evolution, the state teachers and professors are once again in an uproar, claiming that our students will receive a substandard education unless they are taught all of the facts concerning the origin of life.
I could not agree more. The answer is not to de-emphasize or water down the classroom instruction on this fascinating and important topic, but to examine it openly, critically and fully.
Students should be exposed to all of the scientific evidence on evolution, both for and against, so that they can come to logical, informed, scientific conclusions. However, in their clamor for "all the facts" to be taught, there are a few facts that the pro-evolution science educators are keeping from our students.
Far from settled science, there is a growing debate within the science community about the ability of evolution to fully explain the diversity of life on Earth. More than 300 scientists from major universities nationwide, including dozens from Georgia, have signed a document expressing doubts about the claims of evolution.
Modern science instruction includes an undisclosed bias that artificially eliminates any possibilities other than evolution to explain life. It prevents the students from expanding their scientific knowledge and learning skills by forbidding the opportunity to investigate alternative theories scientifically.
Much of the "evidence" cited in science textbooks in support of evolution is dubious at best, and in many cases outright fraudulent. Biologist Jonathan Wells, in the "Icons of Evolution," discloses countless examples of textbook evolutionary "evidence" that has been summarily dismissed by mainstream science, yet is still in use today.
Scientific evidence that might cast doubt about the claims of Darwinian evolution has been censored from Georgia classrooms, as are the views of scientists who dissent from the established evolutionary doctrine.
In an attempt to cloud the issue, the Darwinists will always try to interject "creationism" and "separation of church and state" into the debate. Knowing that they cannot win the debate on the merits of the evidence, they will always resort to this tactic.
The Darwinists are always quick to label someone like me a religious extremist who just wants to interject my own personal faith into the science classroom. Yet it is they who seek, through the power of the state, to insulate their own beliefs about life's origins from critical examination, to propagate those beliefs on an unwitting student population, and who defend their beliefs with the fervency of the most radical fundamentalist.
Georgians should ask themselves why they are so adamantly opposed to an honest, open and critical examination of evolutionary theory in our classrooms. Could it be that their sacred cow is less than convincing when exposed to the light of truth?
Larry Taylor, father of three children in Cobb County public schools, is director of Parents for Truth in Education.
Proposals concern teachers
By AIMEE L. HARMISON
The Cedarville (GA) Standard
02/03/04
http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpID=725&NewsID=523297&CategoryID=3436&show=localnews&om=1The theories behind evolution raised more than a few eyebrows when Charles Darwin published his thoughts about the subject in 1859, and it seems 145 years later the topic is still garnering much debate. The controversy about teaching evolution in the classroom has recently been brought into the limelight by State Superintendent Kathy Coxs proposed changes to the middle grades and high school science curriculum. Coxs proposal calls for eliminating mentions of the word "evolution" from classroom curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes through time." The proposal has been met locally with varying degrees of opinion. Some teachers agree that the omission of the word evolution will radically hinder students academically, others feel that the change wont be as scholastically harsh. Several teachers are also concerned the proposed curriculum raises more important questions about funding and student testing. Cedartown High School science department chair, Autumn Casey isnt upset by the change of verbage in the curriculum. "Evolution basically means a biological change over time so Im not really bothered by the change of words, " said Casey.
She does worry though, as do her peers, about certain parts of the proposed new curriculum and what it means for required end-of-course testing. "Some of the science teachers arent quite clear how some of these new teaching standards will be tested. Theyre wondering if the lessons can be specific enough so they can do well on those important tests," said Casey.
Cedartown Middle School science teacher Penny Bevis, an 18-year veteran of the education field, also worries about the requirements the new curriculum calls for. "Im not pleased with it at all. All these changes look good on paper, but in reality I dont think it will work. The state is wanting all these changes a lot more hands on technology but they are cutting our budget. Were probably the most well equipped middle school in the county, but we dont even have what they are wanting." The Polk School District Board of Education had to cut textbook funding this year in order to make ends meet, and Bevis is concerned what that will mean for her students since these changes are being called for.
"The proposal calls for Earth science being taught two years," said Bevis. "In sixth and again in eight grade. How are we going to get the money for these new textbooks?" Other educators like Dr. Martin Cipollini, department chair of Berry College Mathematics and Natural Sciences division, are concerned that state officials are skirting the big issue. "The mere replacement of the word evolution wont weaken students achievement," said Cipollini, "but theyre dancing around a whole subject. Theyre taking out the fundamental underpinnings that biology and life sciences are based upon."
If the state does not require teachers to thoroughly address the theory of evolution, Cipollini is concerned graduating students wont be prepared for college level science classes. In a press conference Thursday, Cox stated that concepts related to evolution like natural selection - would still be included in the curriculum.
Dr. Darrell Sorrells, Title 1 director of Polk County Schools is in charge of collecting feedback from teachers and staff relating to the proposed curriculum changes. Sorrells will attend a state-wide education meeting this week and will have a chance to present teachers opinions on the changes. The proposal is more than 800 pages of revision to Georgias current curriculum.
As of Thursday evening, more than 1,000 people, including parents, teachers and professors, had signed an online petition objecting to the proposed changes. The State Board of Education will make its decision to accept or disapprove the curriculum in May.
Sorrells encouraged parents and members of the community to voice their own opinion on the new curriculum. By logging on to the Polk School Districts website (), concerned residents can click on the blue Georgia Performance Standards contact page link and find phone numbers and email addresses for state curriculum officials. An online feedback survey is featured through this link as well. There are also links on the districts website that allow the proposed curriculum to be viewed in its entirety.
Ideology holds the reins
GUEST COLUMN: EVOLUTION
By GREG HAMPIKIAN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/4/04
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/04genes.htmlAs a geneticist, I know that censoring scientific speech is a bad idea. One historical example may help illustrate this point. In the early 1900s Russia had a solid reputation in the biological sciences, including two Nobel prizes in medicine. Genetics was then a new field, and many young scientists were drawn to study it.
Since Russia was the largest agricultural producer in Europe, Russian science was expected to make great improvements in food production by using genetic research to breed new strains of wheat and other foodstuffs.
But when Stalin came to power in the 1920s, he decided that the concept of the gene conflicted with aspects of his ideology, Marxism. The official view was that genes were a capitalist invention and did not really exist.
At first, Lenin did not forbid use of the word "gene," but it was dropped from the textbooks. After a while, researchers who insisted on using the word lost their government funding and thus their positions.
Within a few years, genetic research was completely arrested in Russia by a political program that promoted scientists based on ideology. Russian genetics made no progress for 30 years, until Stalin's death in 1954. It was another two decades before Russian education was freed from his ideological constraints.
Scientific principles are not subject to the whims of politicians or voters, but scientific progress is. The truth can't be changed by those in power, but the curriculum can be.
Let's be honest. Whoever proposed removing the word "evolution" from the Georgia curriculum was not objecting to a word but to a scientific principle, and they were not acting based on scientific knowledge, but rather on personal ideology.
Replacing the established scientific term "evolution" with the doublespeak gibberish "biological changes over time" is classic politburo.
I am not just a scientist in this state, but a parent who voluntarily substitute teaches and a Christian who directs a student ministry group. In all of these roles I am affronted by the new draft curriculum.
Greg Hampikian is an associate professor of biology at Clayton College and State University. He chairs the University System of Georgia's Academic Advisory Committee on biology.
School chief's stance on evolution is mere political pandering
Gainesville (GA) Times
04/02/04
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20040204/opinion/346990.htmlFor her stance on the use of the word "evolution" in Georgia classrooms, Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox should be made to write "I will not pander to the religious right and I will do what's best for students" 1,000 times on the nearest blackboard and stand in the corner for the rest of her term in office. Cox last week proposed that "evolution" should be removed from Georgia's school curriculum and replaced with the phrase "biological changes over time." Her suggestion, part of 800 pages of revisions to Georgia's public school curriculum, was posted on the state Department of Education Web site.
Stripping references to evolution from middle and senior high schools is a ridiculous proposal. It's likely Cox never considered that her suggestions would successfully reinforce the theory of evolution by making Georgia look like a state populated by Neanderthals.
Georgia already ranks last in the nation in SAT scores, yet Cox has made the state education system appear even more inept and backward. She has been criticized from all sides for putting politics before education.
No less an authority than Jimmy Carter, Sunday school teacher from Plains and former president, blasted the superintendent for her curriculum blunder. "Nationwide ridicule of Georgia's public school system will be inevitable if this proposal is adopted," Carter said last Friday.
"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's school students," Carter said.
"They ought to drop this and drop it now," Senate Majority Leader Bill Stephens, a Canton Republican, said Monday.
All of Georgia should be embarrassed by Cox's play for the favor of social conservatives, many of whom would think nothing of setting the state and its students back by attempting to eliminate evolution from the curriculum.
The National Center for Science Education says just five states have no reference to evolution in their school curriculums: Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma.
Students from Georgia who go on to college would be at a distinct disadvantage in science classes if their high school curriculum failed to include the theory of evolution. Also subject to new interpretation would be the age of the Earth, the "Big Bang" theory, human origins and our role in the environment. The state also would be hard-pressed to attract leading-edge entrepreneurs and businesses to create good jobs and stimulate the economy in the academic environment that Cox envisions.
Cox also referred to "intelligent design," or the belief that life is too complex to have formed randomly and instead resulted from a higher intelligence, as another scientific theory for the creation of life, according to a story Monday in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The problem with that interpretation is that "intelligent design" is a belief not a theory, say educators interviewed by the AJC.
Gov. Sonny Perdue has said he disagrees with Cox, but advocates "academic balance," which along with "intelligent design" and "biological changes over time," are buzzwords or phrases favored by the religious right in the debate over teaching how life developed.
"The governor seems to be saying, 'Teach evolution but don't teach it seriously,' " Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, told the Atlanta paper.
Cox's effort to subdue a theory firmly entrenched in scientific research and Perdue's willingness to go along only create an image of Georgia bizarrely at odds with reason.
That kind of thinking is, indeed, an embarrassment and a distortion of the facts.
Georgia already ranks last in the nation in SAT scores, yet Cox has made the state education system appear even more inept and backward.
NSTA Voices Concern About Draft Georgia Science Standards
Originally published in NSTA web site on 2004/02/04 http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=49045
The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) announced today that it has serious reservations about the draft Georgia Science Performance Standards released for public comment last month because they do not emphasize evolutionary theory and concepts in a comprehensive and uncensored manner. The draft standards for middle and high school students fail to use the word "evolution" and omit both central and related concepts needed to understand evolution. The Association believes that the omissions, word changes, and incomplete explanations threaten the integrity of the entire document and science education in Georgia. "As written, the draft Georgia standards fall short of fully representing good science because they do not provide an accurate and complete presentation of evolution," said John Penick, NSTA President. "In addition to the obvious omission of the word, the standards also de-emphasize or eliminate key concepts of evolution, including references to the mechanisms that explain how natural selection operates and the age of the Earth. This is unacceptable and does a disservice to the students of Georgia."
Science education experts appointed by State Superintendent Kathy Cox recommended that the Georgia science standards be based on Project 2061's Benchmarks for Science Literacy, which were developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and on the formulation of the Benchmarks in the Council for Basic Education's Standards for Excellence in Education. The standards recommended by the advisors encompass the full vision of quality science education and meet national and international standards. Unfortunately, the Superintendent's office seriously weakened them by deleting the word "evolution," opting instead for the euphemism "change over time"; by omitting some central concepts related to evolution, such as references to the age of the Earth; and by misconstruing other concepts.
"The decision to omit the word 'evolution' sends mixed messages to the science teachers of Georgia," said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director. "Teachers must be supported and encouraged to do the job they've been hired to do - teach good science. Yielding to non-scientific viewpoints only makes their job more difficult. We are encouraging Georgia science teachers to voice their strong opposition to the draft standards."
NSTA will hold its National Convention in Atlanta on April 1-4 and will use the event as a platform for Georgia teachers to discuss the draft standards and to voice their concerns about them. NSTA is encouraging science teachers in the state to visit the Georgia Department of Education's website to view and comment on the standards.
NSTA maintains a formal position statement on the teaching of evolution, which can be found online. The document states that NSTA "strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula.
Teach, but don't speak
St. Petersburg Times
A Times Editorial
February 4, 2004
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/04/Opinion/Teach__but_don_t_speak.shtmlIn 1925 teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating a Tennessee state law banning the teaching of evolution. Now, 75 years after what became known as "The Monkey Trial," Georgia's top education official wants to remove the word evolution from its statewide biology curriculum. State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox said schools won't be barred from teaching evolution. They just can't use the word evolution, which she called "a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction."
Cox apparently believes the sensitivities of religious fundamentalists should come ahead of educating students. A biology curriculum that banishes the E-word, or tries to discredit the theory of evolution, fails to provide the overarching theory of how life began, a thorough understanding of adaptation, natural selection, and genetics, and how the diversity of life on the planet came to be. It would be like trying to teach physics by steering clear of gravity.
The state copied much of its proposed biology curriculum from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, an excellent source of such material. But wherever the standards discussed the origin of living things, the state deleted much of it. Cox told reporters that the reason was not so much "religion vs. science," but "how do we ensure that our kids are getting a quality science education." Cox said because science is changeable, all legitimate theories should be explored, including possibly "intelligent design" - the newest twist on creationism that says the universe and life were designed with the hand of a higher power.
Fundamentalists have tried all sorts of formulations of creationism to sidle past church-state strictures, so far unsuccessfully. In 1982, the state of Louisiana passed a law requiring schools to teach "creation science" alongside evolution. The law was later set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of Georgia's most famous native sons, former President Jimmy Carter, is among those who have spoken out against Cox's proposal. "There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology and astronomy," Carter told the Associated Press. "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat earth in order to defend our religious faith."
The State Board of Education has until May to reconsider.
Editorial: Banning the E-word
Georgia wrong to try to strike 'evolution' from curriculumColumbus [OH] Dispatch
Wednesday, February 4, 2004
[no URL; by subscription only]Georgia's education officials apparently feel evolution is OK if it's not called by its real name. Revised standards would delete the word from the biology curriculum, preferring instead biological changes over time.
State School Superintendent Kathy Cox said the revised curriculum includes "the concepts of Darwinism, adaptation, natural selection, mutation and speciation.'' So why not call it what it is? Evolution.
Evolution has become a "buzzword,'' Cox explained, adding that the ban would ease pressure on teachers in areas where parents object to such teaching. That won't work. The change doesn't go far enough to appease those who say evolutionary theory conflicts with biblical teaching.
Teachers in Georgia will line up to oppose the change, just as many in Ohio spoke in opposition when the intelligent-design theory was promoted for inclusion in the state standards.
The secondary-school standards are to be voted on by the Georgia Board of Education in May, after public comments. The plan would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word and would not prevent teachers from using the E-word, undoubtedly a realization that banning the word from being spoken in class is unworkable.
Georgia officials should kill this ill-considered idea. If the word becomes taboo, the subject might follow.
The Dispatch reiterates its view that the basis for science courses should be only science, not pseudo-science stemming from religious texts or beliefs. Georgia's teachers shoul