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 should be troubled by this comment by Cox, "If teachers across this state, parents across this state say, 'This (change) is not what we want,' then we'll change it.''
The classes should be based on scientific knowledge, not public opinion. The only theory affirmed by centuries of carefully analyzed data is evolution. The other theories should be discussed in courses on comparative religion, not biology.
Jimmy Carter said the plan would expose his home state to nationwide ridicule.
"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University (in Atlanta), I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students,'' the former president said.
The practice of one's faith and the study of evolution are not incompatible. Carter, a lifelong Baptist who often teaches Sunday School, said that references to evolution in Georgia's curriculum have done nothing to damage religious faith. He's right.
Creationism, by any other name, still unfit
Colin Campbell
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/5/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/05colin.htmlGov. Sonny Perdue's spokesman suggested the other day that media coverage of Georgia's uproar over evolution has been overplayed and that the governor needs to move on. But until Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox withdraws her proposals to downplay the teaching of evolution -- and as long as Perdue waffles between chiding Cox and endorsing a "balance" of creationism and evolution -- the uproar will continue.
Why does it matter? Not just because Georgia is becoming an international laughingstock but also because rationality and science tend to wither when religious dogmatists take over the schools.
For many years in this country it seemed no big deal that some states and a lot of school districts humored their Christian fundamentalists by banning the teaching of evolution. But then in 1957 the Soviet Union put Sputnik into space, and the fear arose that the U.S. might fall dangerously behind. America responded by teaching more hard science -- including Darwin, fossils, the natural selection of species, evolution and so on.
Alas, some biblical literalists and other religious folk still hate evolution. A typical cartoon of their real views appeared at a 1992 conference in Minnesota. It showed a Christian soldier chopping down a tree whose trunk was labeled "evolution." It was the tree's branches, though, that captured the creationists' true horror. They were labeled "abortion," "communism," "euthanasia," "humanism," "Nazism," "New Age religions," "paganism," "pornography," "radical-feminist movement," "racism" and "sexual perversion."
Many opponents of evolution sound more rational than that. But very few are biologists; and, although some people view modern science as a conspiracy, there are actually good and rational reasons that scientific journals don't publish either sweeping attacks on the theory of evolution, or defenses of "creation science" and "intelligent design."
Intelligent design is one of those alleged alternatives to evolution that Cox recently called "a scientific theory" worthy of being taught in biology classes. In truth, it's no such thing.
The basic notion of intelligent design dates back centuries. It holds that the universe is so wonderfully complex and purposeful that it can't possibly be an accident and must have been created by an all-wise power. The idea also may be true! But it's not science.
Recently, the notion of intelligent design has been elaborated -- as if it were a scientific theory -- in order to put down evolution and insert the concept of creationism into the schools. And the elaboration has some very devious aspects.
Take a look at "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design," by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. This new book (published by Oxford University Press) is the "definitive" expose of the intelligent-design crowd's attempt "to corrupt science in the service of sectarian religion," according to Edward O. Wilson, the famous Harvard biologist. The people and groups now pushing intelligent design, in other words, are creationists in disguise who imitate science (complete with charts, footnotes, formulas, etc.) to attack and deny the science that most scientists subscribe to.
Their tactics have led many commentators to compare the pseudoscientists who attack evolution to the better-known pseudohistorians who deny the Holocaust.
Georgia has a great deal at stake here. Is the state about to put religious dogma and fake science on a par with real science? And why?
Statement of Superintendent Kathy Cox Regarding the Proposed Biology Curriculum
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/doe/media/04/020504.asp
Atlanta 2/5/04 - State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox issued the following statement today regarding the draft of the biology curriculum under the proposed Georgia Performance Standards.
"I made the decision to remove the word evolution from the draft of the proposed biology curriculum in an effort to avoid controversy that would prevent people from reading the substance of the document itself. Instead, a greater controversy ensued."
"I am here to tell you that I misjudged the situation, and I want to apologize for that. I want you to know today that I will recommend to the teacher teams that the word evolution be put back in the curriculum. Let us move forward with the work of ensuring that Georgias schools, teachers, and schoolchildren have a world-class curriculum that will help us lead the nation in improving student achievement."
Cox will recommend 'evolution' stay in curriculum
By Mary MacDonald
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
February 5, 2004
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/05evolution.htmlState Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox announced Thursday she will recommend that the word evolution be retained in Georgia's proposed curriculum for middle and high school science.
"I made the decision to remove the word evolution from the draft of the proposed biology curriculum in an effort to avoid controversy that would prevent people from reading the substance of the document itself," Cox said in a statement. "Instead, a greater controversy ensued."
Cox had proposed the phrase "biological changes over time," a term that scientists derided as meaningless, be used instead.
"I am here to tell you that I misjudged the situation and I want to apologize for that. I want you to know today that I will recommend to the teacher teams that the word 'evolution' be put back in the curriculum," she said.
Her decision followed a week of withering criticism from a variety of sources, including university professors, the National Science Teachers Association and even former President Jimmy Carter. The superintendent's office received about 900 to 1,000 online responses to the curriculum changes, most of it directed at the biology proposal, a spokesman said.
"We have heard from the people of Georgia," said Cox's spokesman, Kirk Englehardt. "We've been receiving feedback from everywhere."
Controversy over the teaching of evolution surfaced 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.
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.
Cox plans to reconvene the teacher and science advisory panels that had worked on the proposed standards sometime this month, earlier than she had initially proposed.
Cox made no statement on her decision to not include in the biology proposal several national standards for evolution instruction that many scientists say are critical for students to understand it. Those standards, culled from the American Association for the Advancement of Science benchmarks, include the explanation for natural selection and statements about the origins of life on Earth such as "life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago."
Englehardt said the superintendent plans to put that issue before the curriculum advisory panels.
At least one scientist hailed Cox's reversal on the word "evolution."
"I am glad she came to her senses," said Jung Choi, associate professor of biology at Georgia Tech Thursday morning.
"I expected she would. What I am concerned about is whether she will go on the other side and include creation science and intelligent design [in the curriculum], the so-called alternative theories that she has mentioned before."
Choi said it is essential students study evolution before reaching college.
"I think it is critical because biology does not really make sense without evolution. It is the very first topic that we cover in freshman biology. There's too many students that come to Georgia Tech that have not studied evolution before."
Previously, Cox had said her proposed biology curriculum would allow teachers to present other scientific theories about evolution such as "intelligent design." She did not clarify that position Thursday.
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.
The proposed biology curriculum draws on national standards, but includes a truncated version of required knowledge for students on evolution.
Kathy Cox: For refusing to evolve mentally
BY Scott Henry
THE WEEKLY SCALAWAG
Creative Loafing Atlanta
02.05.04
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2004-02-05/news_scalawag.htmlWhen you've been both dissed by a Nobel Peace Prize-winner (Jimmy Carter) and called an idiot by the looniest flat-Earther in the General Assembly (Rep. Bobby Franklin), you know you've fucked up. By the end of her disastrous press conference last week, it was painfully clear that state school Superintendent Cox -- who plans to remove references to evolution from the science curriculum because it's "a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction" -- does not know what science is.
She made things even worse by suggesting that so-called "intelligent design theory" -- basically, a gussied-up form of neo-creationism -- is a scientific theory that might be taught in Georgia schools.
But intelligent design theory, which is being pushed by the Christian fundamentalist crowd, doesn't even meet the standards of Cox's own proposed middle-school science curricula -- namely, that scientific inquiry requires independent verification, testable hypotheses, reproducible results and peer review by the legitimate scientific community.
Evolution has done all that. For example, scientists conduct experiments every day in which strains of bacteria mutate and evolve resistance to drug treatment. Those experiments can then be replicated.
Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, is essentially religious philosophy masquerading as science. In a nutshell, it claims that certain biological functions are so complex -- the functioning of the eye, for instance -- that gradual biological change can't account for it. Therefore, such phenomena must have existed from the beginning of life, and that points to the existence of a designer, meaning God.
So, does Cox really not grasp what qualifies as science or is she willfully ignoring it to impose her religious beliefs on Georgia's schoolkids? Whatever the answer, parents have good reason to wonder, along with our president, "Is our children learning?"
CL would like to recommend that, in order to give Cox a better appreciation and understanding of real science, she be launched without delay aboard the next rocket leaving for Uranus.
Attorney: Debate over textbook disclaimer heated by recent discussions on evolution
By David Burch
Marietta Daily Journal
Friday, February 6, 2004
http://www.mdjonline.com/articles/2004/02/06/268/10133127.txtMARIETTA - The recent statewide debate over Superintendent Kathy Cox's now-defunct suggestion to remove the word evolution from science classes has re-ignited the flames of Cobb's evolution debate that attracted national attention two years ago. East Cobb resident Jeffrey Selman filed a federal lawsuit against the Cobb County School District in August 2002, asking that the district be forced to remove a disclaimer from middle and high school textbooks that describes evolution as "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."
The disclaimers attracted national media attention, much as the debate sparked by Ms. Cox's suggestion has reached the pages of Newsday and newspapers as far away as San Francisco.
Critics of the Cobb school textbook disclaimer said the policy was a thinly veiled attempt to allow religious-based theories on the origin of the world to be discussed in local schools.
Selman's litigation eventually gained the support of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia and five additional plaintiffs.
And while that lawsuit has been sitting idle since it was filed in August 2002, Michael Manely, a Marietta attorney working with the ACLU on the lawsuit, said the federal court has started moving on the case.
"This case has really heated up since that state evolution debate started," he said.
During the time the statewide debate began, Manely said a federal judge has decided a number of minor motions concerning the lawsuit.
The court also set a Feb. 25 date for the first hearing in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.
The hearing would decide a motion filed by two Cobb parents in March 2003 to be allowed to join the school system as defendants and help fight against the lawsuit.
The parents, Larry Taylor and Allen Hardage, claimed in their filings with the court that the ACLU lawsuit would violate the First Amendment rights of their children by censoring the discussion of certain theories about the origin of human beings.
A trial should be set for sometime this spring, Manely said.
Whether discussing the latest state controversy over the teaching of evolution or the past decisions made by the Cobb school board, Selman said the issue remains the same - to maintain the separation of individual religious teachings or beliefs from government, including the public schools.
"Again, the issue is 'do we want to teach what is appropriate to teach our children?'" he said.
Selman said he doubted that the omission of the word evolution from the state curriculum would have ever been able to withstand a challenge.
"They have to change it," he said. "They would have to be out of their minds to approve what they put out there."
'Evolution' back in teaching plan
By Mary MacDonald
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02/06/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204/06evolution.htmlState Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox said Thursday she will recommend restoring the word "evolution" to Georgia's science teaching standards and apologized for taking it out. But she did not commit to reinstating other deleted national teaching standards in the biology curriculum, which scientists say are needed if Georgia students are to fully understand evolution.
The state's proposed revision of the middle and high school science curriculum triggered a furious backlash from scientists, parents and politicians because, among other things, it replaced "evolution" with the phrase "biological changes over time."
Scientists were further angered when Cox the state's highest elected education official seemed to advocate the teaching of "intelligent design," an idea that life came about through a planned sequence by a higher being.
The decision to strike references to the word "evolution," for which Cox took responsibility, attracted national attention and made Georgia look foolish, critics said.
On Thursday, Cox said she had misjudged the situation. "I made the decision to remove the word 'evolution' from the draft of the proposed biology curriculum in an effort to avoid controversy that would prevent people from reading the substance of the document itself," Cox said in a statement. "Instead, a greater controversy ensued."
Cox's staff estimated she had received nearly 1,000 comments about the curriculum, most of it directed at biology, and almost all critical of the proposed change.
Rebukes came from the National Science Teachers Association, Gov. Sonny Perdue and former President Jimmy Carter, who said he was embarrassed for Georgia.
'Right thing to do'
The superintendent's reversal was not prompted by any one particular critic, said spokesman Kirk Englehardt.
The governor learned of the switch Wednesday night, when Cox called him, said Derrick Dickey, a Perdue spokesman. Through Dickey, Perdue said: "It was the right thing to do."
Cox said Thursday she never intended to decree what should or should not be in the biology curriculum, which goes before the state Board of Education in May as part of an overhaul of the state's teaching standards.
Ultimately, Cox said in an interview, the controversy may do more good than harm. "If we really finally kind of settle this issue statewide, then people can be confident that this is what the state of Georgia wants us to do in our science classrooms," she said.
An advisory panel of teachers and science experts who had worked on the science standards during the past year will reconsider the biology curriculum next month. The same group already had recommended that evolution be taught thoroughly, five of the members said.
The initial recommendation sent to the superintendent included the word "evolution" and the national teaching standards prepared by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the panelists said.
Statements deleted
Portions of the national standards that were deleted in Cox's proposal include a detailed explanation of natural selection how organisms with inherited advantages are more likely to survive and reproduce.
Other deleted statements included: "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."
James Rutherford, the former director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's benchmark program, worked for the state advisory board as a consultant. Rutherford said Cox needs to follow her decision to restore evolution with also returning to the national standards, which scientists recommend so that students will understand the concept of evolution. "It gets us on the track, but it's not sufficient," Rutherford said of Cox's reversal on use of the word "evolution."
He said he spoke with Cox before the science curriculum draft was released, and had tried to persuade her to include the complete approach to evolution.
"I said, 'Kathy, I'm trying to help you. I think you now ought to do this right,'" Rutherford said. "She was saying to me, 'Well, let's see what the response is.' Well, she's had a response."
Across the state, biology professors and science teachers described Cox's change of mind as a move in the right direction. But given her earlier description of evolution as a "buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction," professors say public school teachers will need to rely on a strong, specific curriculum.
Critics cite 'dogma'
The curriculum does not specify that Georgia teachers will discuss "intelligent design," which last week Cox called an alternative "scientific theory," or any other view of the origin of life.
But some scientists have found fault in a section of the curriculum initially approved by Cox that would seem to allow public school teachers to introduce other ideas to explain the evolution of living things.
Several professors said Thursday they remain disturbed by comments made in recent days by Perdue and Cox that seemed to back the teaching of alternatives to evolution in science classes.
"It's great that she put the word back. She needs to put the science back now and get the dogma out," said Sarah Pallas, a Georgia State University associate biology professor. "I'm referring to her and Perdue's comments about intelligent design, about balance, and alternate theories."
On Saturday, Perdue said he wanted balanced evolution instruction. "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 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."
Ben Freed, a lecturer in the anthropology department at Emory University, said Georgia will have a world-class science curriculum only if the state adopts the national standards.
"It wasn't just a word that was deleted," he said. "Those [national science standards] are impeccable. ... It's done with the best available science. If we're going to be competing with other states, if we want our students to flourish at the college level, we need to at least stick to those guidelines."
Staff writers Patti Ghezzi and Dana Tofig contributed to this article.
Georgia Schools Restore 'Evolution' to Curriculum
By ARIEL HART
The New York Times
February 6, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/06/education/06EVOL.htmlATLANTA, Feb. 5 The state superintendent of schools says she will reinstate the word "evolution" in the proposed biology curriculum for the state's schools. The superintendent, Kathy Cox, had ordered it removed because it is "a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction," she said last week. In a statement on Thursday, Ms. Cox said the controversy was greater than the one she had hoped to avoid by deleting the word in the first place.
"I am here to tell you that I misjudged the situation, and I want to apologize for that," Ms. Cox said.
The draft had replaced "evolution" with the phrase "biological changes over time." The deletion drew a flood of criticism from biology professors across the state as well as from parents and former President Jimmy Carter.
Ms. Cox's statement did not address complaints that the evolution curriculum's subject matter had been gutted. Some critics said the draft left references to evolution incomplete and scattered.
"All of a sudden you're seeing this omission, and it's a major issue," said Benjamin Z. Freed, chairman of Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education and a lecturer in biological anthropology at Emory University, whose 7-year-old daughter attends public school. "The draft excluded not only the word but actually was misinformed on elements of natural selection."
Physicists also complained about the draft's treatment of the origin of the universe, saying it omitted specific references to its age. Most scientists say the universe is billions of years old, but some creationists believe the Bible established the earth's age at as few as 6,000 years.
Ms. Cox's spokesman, Kirk J. Englehardt, said teacher teams who worked on the curriculum last year would consider the complaints and comment on those issues. They will revise a final draft for her to submit for the state board's approval this spring.
Evolution plan changes over time
By Doug Gross
The Associated Press
Gwinnett Daily Post
2004/02/06
http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/articleD606AE3DA7CC4A26A98197BA1824873B.aspATLANTA - The thinking of Georgias top school official has apparently evolved. Six days after her plan to remove the word evolution from Georgias science curriculum became public, state schools Superintendent Kathy Cox announced Thursday that she was scrapping the idea altogether.
Her decision came after mounting criticism from former President Jimmy Carter, the states governor and a host of political and education leaders.
I want you to know today that I will recommend to the teacher teams that the word evolution be put back in the curriculum, she said in a written statement after canceling a scheduled news conference.
Cox said she originally wanted to remove the word evolution from a draft of the states proposed biology curriculum to avoid controversy that would prevent people from reading the substance of the document itself.
Instead, a greater controversy ensued, she said in the statement.
Cox, a Republican elected to her post in 2002, had called for replacing the word evolution with the phrase biological changes over time in the states curriculum.
Education and political leaders many of whom blasted the plan welcomed Coxs reversal.
After Georgia being the laughing stock of the world for the last week over that foolishness, Im glad she backed off, said Bobby Kahn with the Georgia Democratic Party. It doesnt help us attract business, it doesnt help improve education and when we focus on that kind of thing instead of reducing class sizes, were going in the wrong direction.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, a fellow Republican, said Coxs decision was the right thing to do.
As public officials, we dont have the luxury of thinking out loud, Perdue said. I believe thats what she was doing.
Cox did not return calls by The Associated Press seeking further explanation of her decision.
House Education Committee Chairman Bob Holmes, a Democrat from Atlanta, said Cox had little choice considering the widespread criticism the plan received.
Im glad she was responsive to the outcry, both by scientists and other political leaders who felt this was something completely unnecessary, Holmes said.
Carter, who lives in Plains, Ga., had called Coxs proposal an embarrassment saying Georgia would be ridiculed and that teaching evolution does not conflict with religious faith.
Some social conservatives applauded it as a step toward teaching creationism in schools, while others said it changed little, since the concept of evolution would still be taught.
Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a negative buzzword and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching.
Under her proposal, the general concepts of evolution would have still been taught.
The proposal would not have required schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word and would not have prevented teachers from using it.
The proposed change was included in more than 800 pages of draft revisions to the curriculum posted last month on the state Department of Educations Web site.
The changes are scheduled to go before the 13-member state Board of Education for a vote in May.
Of six board members interviewed by AP, only two made their views known. Both expressed reservations about removing the word evolution from the curriculum.
Kathy Cox's hardest lesson
Superintendent finds one word can spell troubleBy Dana Tofig
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02/07/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204/08coxprofile.htmlKathy Cox is walking up and down the aisles of the cavernous auditorium at Northview High School in Duluth. Her voice is loud; her delivery is smooth and dramatic. She's making eye contact, waving her arms and cracking jokes. Cox, Georgia's superintendent of schools, is trying to sell this audience of educators, parents and students on the idea that a new, more rigorous curriculum is the answer to many of Georgia's ills. It will boost students' sagging test scores. It will bring more businesses to the state.
"This is not a schools issue," she says to more than 150 teachers, parents and students Jan. 29. "It's a Georgia issue."
But outside the school walls, Georgia's new curriculum was becoming the target of ridicule.
Cox's decision to take the word "evolution" out of the science portion of the proposed curriculum had set off a storm of debate. From metro Atlanta to New York to Paris, the superintendent's labeling of evolution as a "buzzword" has been blasted by scientists, educators, pundits and even a former president.
Gary Henry, a professor of educational policy at Georgia State University, said he couldn't walk his daughter to school without hearing parents talk about it.
"This is the kind of uproar that I have rarely seen," he said. "I think it has opened up the question of what else is missing, what else is a problem with this new curriculum? Were there other motives?"
People question whether removing "evolution," and several passages that detail how evolution should be taught, was a reflection of Cox's beliefs or perhaps a blatant bid for conservative votes.
Cox, a 39-year-old mother of two, says it wasn't God or politics. She says it was teachers.
As an educator for over a decade, Cox watched her colleagues get called before administrators or school boards for teaching controversial topics. She recalled getting called into the principal's office once because a parent complained that she had talked about communism in her social studies class.
"I know what that's like, as a classroom teacher, to get called on the carpet because somebody hears a term and . . . they don't understand what really happened."
Cox said she sees evolution as so politically charged that she wanted to give educators some leeway. They could teach some of the concepts, but not have to use a word that upsets some parents. "None of this has been about my personal beliefs," she said last week. "Honestly, it's been more about my experience."
It was a decision that has muddied Cox's tenure as Georgia's top education official and put an embarrassing smear on the already poor national reputation of the state's public schools. She announced Thursday that she would restore the word "evolution" to the curriculum, but it's not clear whether the controversy will blow over.
Getting elected
Cox rose rapidly from social studies teacher in Fayette County to CEO of the state Department of Education, an agency that spends more than $6 billion a year, an amount greater than half of the state budget.
After 15 years as a teacher at Fayette County High School and Sandy Creek High School, Cox, a Republican, served two fairly uneventful terms in the Legislature, then set her sights on being state superintendent of schools. She toured the state and tapped into the frustration of teachers, who felt they were being blamed for the condition of education in Georgia. It was her first run for statewide office, and she won overwhelmingly, surprising many political observers, who said she rode the coattails of Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue.
She took over a state Education Department that had been ripped apart by politics and micromanagement. Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat, had pushed through a massive school reform package and created separate agencies to oversee it, stripping the department of much of its power. Her predecessor, Republican Linda Schrenko, had paid little attention to policy, instead focusing on building her political base. In fact, she stopped showing up at work in her final months on the job, after her gubernatorial bid fell apart. State Rep. Bob Holmes (D-Atlanta), chairman of the House Education Committee, recently said Schrenko "may have been the single worst administrator in Georgia history, bar none."
Most employees of the Education Department were simply trying to stay out of the crossfire, said Heath Garrett, who was a member of Cox's transition team and is chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).
"There was this kind of excitement that a teacher . . . was coming in and talking about focusing on policy rather than politics," said Garrett, whose boss, Isakson, was formerly chairman of the state Board of Education. "There was a feeling of relief when we got down there."
Enter Kathy Cox, using words like "accountability" and "curriculum." With the help of Perdue's win over Barnes, Cox was able to re-energize the department. Frequently sipping from a can of Tab, Cox held meetings with managers, she showed up at all the state Board of Education meetings, she took any opportunity to speak to business and community groups, teachers and parents.
She traveled around the state, usually by car, often blasting some of her favorite music: the Rolling Stones, Cake and even AC/DC. Cox visited schools in far-flung areas that thought they had dropped off the state's radar. What she lacked in management experience, she tried to make up for in energy.
But the first several months were bumpy.
Contractual and technical snafus that started before she took office led her to cancel the state's curriculum exam in every grade but four, six and eight.
A few months later, in an effort to rally her staff, Cox vowed publicly that the list of schools required to allow students to transfer to better ones would be released by Aug. 1, before most Georgia schools started. The list was delayed several days, causing embarrassment. And her department's misinterpretation of federal law initially left more than 100 schools off that list.
But given the state of the department when Cox arrived, her honeymoon was long.
She embraced the tenets of No Child Left Behind the federal school reform program championed by President Bush that relies on testing and data to judge the success of schools, teachers and students. When Bush held a panel discussion in Knoxville on the two-year anniversary of the law, there was Kathy Cox, sitting to his left.
Cathy Henson, a former chairwoman of the state Board of Education, has generally been impressed with Cox. "I think that she has very publicly made no excuses for educators and told educators they can't make excuses. I think she does sincerely understand how difficult their job is," said Henson. "I think she's a messenger that is more acceptable, because she is an educator."
Cox has been less sure-footed in budget hearings before the state Legislature. She doesn't claim to be a consummate politician. And she says she doesn't want to be.
"I refuse to engage in the nasty side of politics," Cox said. "I'm still on a quest to prove to students that you can be honest. That you can be in a position of political power and not lose your sense of values and not lose your sense of honesty and integrity."
A teacher at heart
Cox has always been a teacher.
As a child in Doylestown, Pa., she played school, teaching imaginary students in the basement of her house. As a college student at Emory University, she quickly abandoned the idea of being a lawyer to answer the call to teach. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa and went on to get a master's degree from Emory.
In her runs for office, Cox has held herself out as a teacher.
Even now, she goes into classrooms about once a month to teach because she feels that it keeps her in touch.
The central focus of Cox's first year in office was rewriting Georgia's curriculum to make it more focused, more rigorous and more usable for teachers.
From August to October, teams of teachers and other experts met and put together clear goals that students must meet in each subject, k-12. But by the end of October, Cox said, there was no more money to hold meetings and it was left to the state Department staff to finish the curriculum. Several issues were debated among Cox and her staff. That included what to do about evolution.
The teaching of evolution, the theory that all living things descended from earlier, more primitive forms, has been a controversial issue in schools for decades. Some parents feel it threatens their religious belief that God created man and earth, while others question the science of evolution. The debate bubbled up two years ago in Cobb County when several dozen parents pressed the school board to abandon science textbooks that they felt wrongly treated evolution as a fact. The debate attracted national attention and led to stickers being put in the textbooks saying that evolution was just a theory.
Cox said she thought about the Cobb County debate and the teachers in more conservative communities who get confronted over controversial topics. Teachers like Amy Denty.
Denty, a teacher in Wayne County in southeast Georgia, was a member of one of the panels that helped write the science curriculum. Denty, like the rest of the panel, felt that evolution should be in the curriculum. But she said she understood where Cox was coming from.
"I agree with Ms. Cox. In essence, it is a buzzword," said Denty, who is not required to teach evolution in her physical science class but has been asked her opinion by parents. "Especially some of the more religious groups get it into their minds that evolution is one of those issues they need to be watchdogging."
In the end, Cox decided to take the word "evolution" and several passages detailing related concepts out of the draft curriculum, which was posted on the department's Web site Jan. 12. She insists she wasn't inserting her own beliefs into the curriculum. While Cox regularly attends Peachtree City United Methodist Church, she believes evolution is part of science and should be taught.
Cox insists she wasn't seeking votes or responding to political pressure. But many say they aren't so sure.
"I can't think of any reason academically why she would have done that other than to think, politically, it would have been helpful," said Rep. Holmes.
The controversy that erupted took Cox by surprise. On Jan. 29, she found herself facing local and national media answering prickly questions about the origin of life. Looking uncomfortable, Cox emphasized that the curriculum was still open to change.
"This is a proposal," she said, ". . . and ultimately, the people of Georgia will tell us what they want in that biology curriculum."
They did.
A world-class mess
By the next day, the criticism was coming fast.
E-mails started pouring in to the state Department of Education, some questioning Cox's abilities. Others were more personal, attacking her intelligence, even her appearance. A Web site titled "Kathy Cox-Evolve" was launched. An online petition gathered thousands of signatures.
Former President Jimmy Carter weighed in strongly. "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."
Even Perdue, an ally, said Cox had made a mistake and that the word "evolution" needed to be in the curriculum. "In this business, you don't get the privilege of thinking out loud," said Perdue, "and I think Superintendent Cox was thinking out loud."
To many, Cox became a poster child for the religious right and for censorship. She was satirized in newspapers, excoriated on TV and debated over the radio.
The debate weighed heavily on her. She spent Jan. 31 in the house, exhausted. Last Sunday, she went to church in the morning and received good wishes and prayers from her friends. When she got home, she decided to go to the gym.
As she backed out of her driveway, she felt her car bump into something. She had hit the family dog a 14-year-old yellow Labrador named Casey.
"That was the worst part of my week," she said. "I lost it. I'm sure it was just a culmination of everything."
But Casey will be OK, and Cox realized she would, too.
"It kind of put everything in perspective," she said. "This has been a rough ride, but in the long run I hope it's going to help the whole issue [of evolution] in the state of Georgia, and teachers won't feel like they're out there having to fight these battles on their own."
Becoming 'Mrs. Cox'
While the debate raged Monday night, Cox was focused elsewhere: How do you build a piAata shaped like a chili pepper and make party invitations that look like sombreros?
As the den leader of the Cobras from Cub Scout Pack 201 in Peachtree City, Cox was trying to keep four fidgety fourth-graders including her younger son, Alex focused on the upcoming Blue and Gold Banquet.
Cox says she is very good at compartmentalizing, so when she's with her family, controversies about evolution or budget cuts or test scores fade into the background.
"I can turn it off, I can turn it back on," Cox says. "I can become Mom. I can become Mrs. Cox."
She is at the gym by 5 a.m. each day, running on a treadmill. Then it's home to make lunches and see the kids off to school. She's at work by 8:30 to 9 a.m.
Her husband, John, runs a construction business from their Peachtree City home. Both have parents in the area to help out with the kids. But Cox will leave state Board of Education meetings early to watch her elder son, John, 13, play football, or she will skip out of a function to make a parent-teacher conference. The kids think it's pretty cool that their mom is one of the highest-ranking public officials in the state.
"I got to miss school to go to an election," John says. Alex adds: "I got autographs from the governor, from the president, from the lieutenant governor and Jimmy Carter."
It does have its downside. It's hard for John to hear his wife called an "idiot" on talk radio. And the ribbing from kids at school can be a pain for her boys.
State Rep. Jan Jones (R-Alpharetta), a mother of two teenage girls, said Cox didn't need to look farther than home to find perspective for her job.
"Part of what makes her so good is the fact that she is a mother with children in the thick of public education," said Jones, a member of the House Education Committee, who said Cox made "a mistake" removing the word evolution. "She gets her reality check every day when she goes home and has two children who have homework and face all the issues."
Staff writers Laura Diamond, Mary MacDonald and researcher Jennifer Ryan contributed to this article.
Evolution more than a word, some say
By Doug Gross
Associated Press Writer
Marietta Daily Journal
Saturday, February 7, 2004
http://www.mdjonline.com/articles/2004/02/07/89/10133192.txtATLANTA - Even with plans to remove the word "evolution" from the state's school curriculum scrapped, science educators remain disturbed about Georgia's proposed changes to the teaching of the theory. "So many people were focused on the word," said Cindy Workosky with the National Science Teachers Association. "It's not just a word issue."
After her push to spike the word "evolution" in Georgia's science curriculum drew criticism and national attention, state schools Superintendent Kathy Cox announced Thursday that she was reversing the idea.
The proposal was part of more than 800 pages of draft revisions to the state's teaching guidelines posted last month on the Georgia Department of Education's Web site.
Educators, along with lawmakers of all political stripes, welcomed the reversal.
But scientists who have studied the plan say other, more subtle changes to the curriculum also would undermine the teaching of a theory widely accepted in scientific circles.
As a result, they say, teachers could be intimidated by anti-evolution parents or school officials into not teaching it.
"By making subtle changes here and there, which weaken the document, this weakens the shield of protection that science teachers have," said Gerald Skoog, a Texas Tech University professor who has studied Georgia's proposed changes.
For example, Cox's proposal deletes a definition of evolution provided by teacher teams who made suggestions on the curriculum changes, said Skoog, a past president of the National Science Teachers Association who has monitored the teaching of evolution since 1966.
Skoog said the teachers' draft also stated that most scientists at the end of the 20th Century accepted the basics of Charles Darwin's evolution theory.
That, too, is removed from Cox's draft.
Cox spokesman Nick Smith said Friday that the superintendent welcomes feedback from teachers and other interested parties.
The state Board of Education is expected to vote on a new curriculum in May.
"Curriculum review is a process and the process works," Smith said. "We're now in the public comment phase of that process."
Smith said Cox has asked the science teachers team to begin meeting again this month - weeks before teacher teams from other disciplines are scheduled to meet.
"The superintendent will accept the final recommendation of the teacher team and take it directly to the board," he said.
The buzzword police
Bob Barr
A UPI Outside View commentary
2/7/2004
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040202-111940-2268rATLANTA, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Georgia's school superintendent, Kathy Cox, has been roundly condemned for her proposal that the word "evolution" be removed from the state's public school textbooks.
Cox proposed that the offending term be replaced by the phrase "biological changes over time," reflecting the bureaucrat's first rule of thumb, "never say in one word what you can say in four."
In explanation of her proposal, Cox stated simply that "evolution" had become a "buzzword," that created "pressure" on teachers in "socially conservative areas where parents objected to its teaching."
Actually, the superintendent might be on to something here.
There are too many "buzzwords" being bandied about in society today. These words are confusing and they create pressure on tender minds of all ages, not just those of school age who fall within Cox's jurisdiction; and not just those in "socially conservative areas."
Think how much simpler public discourse would be if we didn't have to deal with such distasteful terms as "abortion." Talk about a buzzword. We could simply define it away, and by a stroke of a pen, it disappears; to be replaced with "biological changes over time." Oh, that term's already taken. Well, how about "sudden life force changes?" Or the equally benign, "exercise of reproductive rights?"
Washington could also get in on the act. Nasty "deficits," which certainly create pressure on Republicans and Democrats alike in these oh-so-difficult times, would become a thing of the past. It would be so much easier and simpler to deal with "exercises in budgetary expenditures over time."
The current and often pressure-packed debate over "weapons of mass destruction" would be far less vituperative if Cox could prevail on everyone from Kofi Annan to George W. Bush, to remember that these are simply, "tools with which to send large numbers of people to the Promised Land over a period of time."
The problems facing our intelligence community, which seems to have erred greatly not only in failing to correctly ascertain the threats posed by large number of terrorists (henceforth in Cox-speak, "individuals seeking political changes over time"), but also in greatly exaggerating the likelihood that tools with which to send large numbers of people to the Promised Land over a period of time were present in pre-invasion Iraq, would receive a new lease on life.
"Intelligence," always a pressure-packed buzzword, would vanish; replaced by the more comfortable term, "what we want it to mean at this point in time but which may change over time, circumstances and politics." The only problem would become what to rename the Central Intelligence Agency, but I'm sure the same folks who gave us "shock and awe" as a new term of sophisticated military policy can come up with something.
The Bush administration, anticipating the Georgia school superintendent's new language policy, has already begun redefining, along with its neo-conservative supporters, many terms which heretofore had been needlessly confusing.
"Overthrowing a foreign government," has become simply "regime change over time"; while "invasion" has been superceded by the more comforting term, "preemptive action." In education, near and dear to all state school superintendents, Washington has led the way. For example, the old saw horse, "increased federal spending on education," has become "No Child Left Behind."
Protecting the sensibilities of our anti-Second Amendment crowd is important to all of us, and removing the term "assault weapon" from the lexicon and replacing it with, "a military-style firearm capable of fully automatic fire," would help. But wait, that is the definition of an assault weapon, and it certainly hasn't stopped gun control advocates from continuing to use the term to mean any "firearm" that looks mean, including those that are not capable of fully automatic fire. Oh well, the process on which we're embarking to clean up our language won't be without its fits and starts.
Already, the buzzword's future days are numbered, and not a minute too soon, given that this is a presidential election year and its attendant electoral silliness is in full gear.
The ongoing primary season, which has created its own sense of pressure, and has given rise to a number of buzzwords, certainly should fall within the crosshairs of the Buzzword Police. "Front-runner," perhaps the most confusing of primary-related terms, would be more honestly defined as "whoever the mainstream media decides is the most intriguing at the moment." Of course, as Howard Dean, Wes Clark, and other Democrat hopefuls whose enthusiasm becomes boundless with a second, third- or fourth-place finish, the buzzword "winner" has no meaning whatsoever; at least not thus far.
Removing offending, pressure-inducing buzzwords will not immediately end all forms of pressure or unpleasantness in our society, but it sure would be a start. Forcing people to use the new terms would be a huge job in itself, but I'm sure the new Buzzword Police would be up to the task. They'd want to start with that pesky word, "censorship," and define it away with a whisk of the bureaucratic wand. "Changing vocabulary over time" is so much less threatening.
Bob Barr is a former U.S. Attorney and member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Ashe: Standardize curriculum changes
By CARLOS CAMPOS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02/09/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/legislature/0204/10leged.htmlHouse Democrats waded into the evolution controversy on Monday by introducing a bill to require that future changes to Georgia's public school curriculum follow national educational standards.
The bill comes a few weeks after Republican state School Superintendent Kathy Cox unveiled a proposed science curriculum that did not include the word "evolution." Her decision was met with derision nationally from science teachers, who said Georgia students would be unprepared for college without proper instruction on evolution.
Former President Jimmy Carter and current Gov. Sonny Perdue also questioned Cox's actions. Cox backed off the proposal after the public reaction.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Kathy Ashe (D-Atlanta), a member of the House Education Committee, said Monday, "It's about making sure when we change curriculum in Georgia we change it in ways that it's nationally appropriate."
Ashe said such organizations as the National Science Teachers Association have adopted generally accepted teaching standards the state of Georgia should follow.
Rep. DuBose Porter (D-Dublin), the second-ranking Democrat in the House, is a co-sponsor.
Cox's spokesman, Kirk Englehardt, said Monday the superintendent would not comment until she had time to review the bill.
Ashe said she also is seeking clarification on what role the Legislature plays in curriculum changes. Current law provides that proposed curriculum changes must be presented to the General Assembly "for review." That wording is unclear, she said.
"My real objective is to make sure the legislative process isn't left out as major curriculum revisions are made and Georgia maintains a curriculum that is worthy as our place as an economic engine for the Southeast," Ashe said.
She added, "Clearly, I think the word 'evolution' has to be in the curriculum."
A Republican House leader said deciding what students should learn in the classroom is beyond the scope of what legislators ought to be doing.
"Of all the things we need to fix in public education now, the last thing is members of the General Assembly in classrooms selecting curriculum," House Minority Whip Jerry Keen (R-St. Simons Island) said.
Besides, Keen said, the process worked in the case of teaching evolution to Georgia students.
"Superintendent Cox asked for feedback regarding evolution," Keen said. "She received it and responded accordingly."
The bill has been assigned to the House Education Committee, where it has the support of committee Chairman Rep. Bob Holmes (D-Atlanta).
"Unfortunately, over the last few weeks, we've seen the need for oversight," said Holmes, who described Cox's proposal as having "basic flaws in it, inaccuracies in terms of historical facts."
Holmes, a political scientist at Clark Atlanta University, said the state must follow national educational standards if it expects its public school graduates to compete on a national and international level for jobs.
Further, companies and academic researchers might think twice about relocating to Georgia if such teaching standards are ignored, Holmes said.
How to bring a scientist-mom with kids to Georgia
Tom Baxter and Jim Galloway
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/10/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/insider/0204a/021004.htmlHow to bring a scientist-mom with kids to Georgia: Tell her that the schools are really one big nature vs. nurture experiment
First off, we have to warn you that Kirk Dornbush is a Democrat. He's raising money for John Edwards in the presidential primary. But Dornbush is also something of a venture capitalist, on the five-man board of Iconic Therapeutics, a development-stage company in Atlanta focused on the commercial use of immunoconjugate proteins, through a license with Yale University. Suffice it to say that Iconic is a fledgling biotech firm, with tools that might be useful against cancer and blindness caused by macular degeneration.
For the last year or so, there's been a fight over whether to keep the firm in Georgia, which -- in the multi-billion-dollar terms of corporate investment -- has diddly to show in the biotech field.
Within the next six months or a year, the company will have to start a small "wet" lab. Dornbush wants the company to stay in Atlanta, but said he lost ground over the weekend during a meeting of his board.
"We hadn't got past the pleasantries before they brought it up," Dornbush said. "They said, 'Kirk, can you say evolution?' And they had a good point. What are you going to say to a geneticist or microbiologist who has a kid they might have to put in a Georgia school system?"
E-word brings out the e-mail
Colin Campbell
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2004/02/10
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/10colin.htmlLots of people hit the roof after state Schools Superintendant Kathy Cox proposed that evolution be downplayed in Georgia's public schools. I joined the critics, in three columns, and readers bombarded me with mail. Here's a tiny sample of their thoughts, starting with the anti-evolutionists.
"[T]o believe in evolution essentially takes God out of the picture," wrote Sam Kiker of Duluth, "and maybe that is what people want."
"Being a Christian," wrote Kip Howard of Marietta, "I have no problem with evolution being taught in public schools as long as it's taught as THEORY only and not fact, since no legitimate facts exist to prove evolution is valid."
Bill DeMartino of Norcross wrote: "Anyone who has kept up with this field will tell you that the cutting-edge evolutionary theorists don't even believe Darwin's theory."
"You must be really scared," wrote another reader. "You don't have a clue about real science. What is so frightening about intelligent design? Go to www.reasons.org and check out the facts. Dare you!"
A few critics grew harsh. "I don't say this to many people," wrote Walter Little Jr. of East Point, "but you are an absolute moron. ... I did not evolve from a monkey or an ape. I was created by God."
A few readers on the other side were also harsh. "The know-nothings, flat-earth nuts and fundamentalist zealots are far more threatening to our country's future than terrorists," wrote Roland Anderton of Atlanta. "And they're all Republicans!"
Other proponents of teaching evolution insisted that Cox carved much more than the single word "evolution" out of Georgia's biology curriculum.
Sarah Pallas, a biology professor at Georgia State University, said Cox has reinstated the e-word, but key scientific concepts remain censored, "such as the ecological impact of humans, age of the Earth, common ancestry, plate tectonics, Big Bang theory, and the history of life, the Earth and the universe."
Georgia's systematic deletions struck Wes McCoy, chairman of the science department at North Cobb High School in Kennesaw, as suspicious: "It is as if someone has a very particular set of philosophical beliefs, and they wish to apply that philosophy to the entire state."
"I have been teaching earth science at the University of Georgia for 31 years," wrote Professor Vernon Meentemeyer, "and I continue to be distressed by the poor science education of incoming freshmen. In almost every class there will be a few students who want to fight with you over the age of the Earth, the fossil record, etc. Some try to use up time by asking questions which are so expertly crafted that they must have come out of some guide book. Or they were coached. Once every year or so a student will ask for a 'visitor' to come into my classroom to give 'alternative' viewpoints."
I also got letters from Christians who disagree with the anti-evolutionists.
"I'm about as conservative as they come," wrote Charles Jackson of Atlanta: "solid Bush/Perdue Republican, pre-Vatican II, Mel Gibson-type Roman Catholic. However, there is nothing inherently irreligious about evolution. God's plan for us can certainly accommodate Charles Darwin."
Evolution flap prompts curriculum bill
The Associated Press - ATLANTA
AccessNorthGa.com
2004/02/10
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=31093A short-lived plan to delete the word evolution from Georgias science curriculum inspired some lawmakers to propose new rules Monday for how the state decides what to teach in schools. Two powerful House Democrats proposed a bill to require a state curriculum that conforms to national standards. The move would give the Legislature more control over whats taught in public schools.
The bills sponsor, Rep. Kathy Ashe of Atlanta, said the guideline would prevent gaffes like the recent debate over evolution.
Superintendent Kathy Cox, a Republican, proposed a new science curriculum that would replace the word evolution with changes over time.
Cox reversed her position after a week of intense scrutiny from science teachers and college professors. The National Science Teachers Association and other national groups suggest teaching evolution.
We need to be making sure those kinds of organizations have a look at our curriculum, Ashe said.
The idea was quickly rejected by Republicans, who defended Coxs handling of the curriculum. The evolution debate surfaced during a planned public comment period on the new curriculum, so the process worked fine, they said.
I dont think the people of Georgia want a bunch of left-wing curriculum people writing our standards here, said Republican Sen. Joey Brush, chairman of the Senate Education Committee.
Cox did not immediately respond to calls for comment on the bill. The Department of Education is part of the executive branch, with an independently elected superintendent. The DOE board is appointed by the governor and ultimately approves or rejects curriculum plans.
Lawmakers currently have very little control over the subject matter taught in schools. The DOE is required to submit curriculum plans to the Legislature for review, but its unclear in the law whether the Legislature can reject those plans.
Republicans argue that Ashes bill is a power grab intended to give lawmakers more say over whats taught.
Rep. Brooks Coleman, a Republican who is a member of the Curriculum Subcommittee of the House Higher Education Committee, said national standards should be encouraged but not required.
Im not sure we should mandate them, said Coleman, who is from Duluth. Our curriculum should encompass national standards because our children are going to compete nationally, and we should encourage that. But you can run into trouble when you start mandating things.
Democratic supporters insist there should be some oversight of the curriculum. Speaker Pro Tem DuBose Porter, a co-signer on Ashes bill, said there are problems with Coxs proposed history and math curricula, too.
In light of the politicizing of the curriculum, apparently there needs to be some checks and balances, Porter said.
Georgia bans evolution, later rescinds
Taunza Harris, Junior Staff Writer
The GSU Singal
February 10, 2004
http://www.gsusignal.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/10/402908b9cbdefEarlier this week, State Superintendent Kathy Cox made the proposal to change the biology curriculum and take the word "evolution" out of the middle and high school curriculum.
Her proposal intends to replace the word "evolution" with the term "biological changes over time". It would also introduce alternative ideas about human creation such as "intelligent design" and "creationism".
According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Gov. Sonny Perdue thinks that the proposal could help promote "academic balance" and "academic freedom" in Georgia academic institutions. However, he did not agree with the idea to remove the word "evolution" from the standard curriculum.
Unfortunately, not everyone was as optimistic about the change in the academic curriculum. Coxs proposal received numerous phone calls and letters from parents, teachers, and the scientific community.
Some like Sarah Pallas, an assistant professor of biology at Georgia State, said Sunday that public comments reveal an ignorance of science.
The theory of evolution is simplest and most proven theory in explaining how things came to be. Georgia States biology chair, Dr. Tai Chang, stated that views that oppose the idea of the evolution theory are usually based of beliefs. The belief in "intelligent design" and "creationism" cannot be proven.
Cox original reason for removing the word "evolution" from the classroom science curriculum was intended to avoid controversy in varying views in the Georgia public school system.
Several days later, according to the AJC, Cox said Thursday she will recommend restoring the word "evolution" to Georgias science teaching standards and apologize for taking it out.
But she did not commit to reinstating other deleted national teaching standards in the biology curriculum that, according to scientist, are necessary for fully understanding evolution.
The other portions that were originally deleted out dealt with the explanation of natural selection, and a detailed understanding between one celled and multi celled organisms.
According by some critics as stated by some critics in the AJC article, aside from attracting negative attention from parents, scientists, politicians the experience was embarrassing and made Georgia look foolish.
A change in the Georgia scientific curriculum would make Georgia students less competitive than students in states that follow the national standard set for the science curriculum.
To some, Coxs attitude towards evolution showed personal bias against the entire scientific community.
However, many like Sarah Pallas feel that "its great she put the word back. She needs to put the science back and get rid of the dogma".
Curriculum team to revisit evolution
By DANA TOFIG
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02/10/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204/11evolve.htmlEvolution should be back in the state's proposed curriculum by next week &emdash; but how much of it remains to be seen.
State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox said the team of teachers that wrote the proposed biology standards will meet Thursday to debate whether to put the word "evolution" and many of the scientific theory's concepts back in the draft curriculum. The state Board of Education will vote on the team's recommendations at a special meeting on Feb. 19.
"For this particular piece we've asked this group to come in early and . . . do whatever tweaking they need," Cox said in an interview Tuesday.
Cox's decision to remove the word sparked national outrage, drawing criticism from scientists, educators and politicians. Last Thursday, she said she would recommend that the word be put back in the draft curriculum, which is posted on the state Department of Education's Web site for public comment. However, Cox did not say whether she thought some of the concepts of evolution that she removed should also be restored.
"I am not the biology specialist," said Cox, who was a high school social studies teacher for 15 years in Fayette County. "I am going to let the experts and the teachers of Georgia . . . decide what needs to be taught in the classroom in regards to this issue."
The teacher team that wrote the biology curriculum wanted the word "evolution" and all of its concepts taught. The team will meet Thursday to revise the draft. If approved by the Board of Education, the reworked draft will be posted for additional public comment.
Cox and other education officials say that making the state's curriculum more focused and rigorous will kick-start student achievement in Georgia. While some of the proposed changes have been well-received, any good thoughts were buried by the avalanche of debate over evolution.
The teaching of evolution, the theory that all living things descended from earlier, more primitive forms, has been a controversial issue in schools for decades. Some parents feel it threatens the religious belief that God created man and Earth. The debate arose two years ago in Cobb County.
Last week, Cox said she removed the word and some of the concepts of evolution because she was trying to give teachers some leeway to teach it without having to use a word that antagonizes some parents. She insists that she was not motivated by politics or personal beliefs.
A 90-day public comment period on the new curriculum continues into April. Any necessary changes will be made before it goes to the state Board of Education for approval in May.
Science teachers to revise Georgia's evolution plan
The Associated Press - ATLANTA
Associated Press [on AccessNorthGa.com]
2004/02/11
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=31167A panel of science teachers will revise Georgias proposed curriculum Thursday to restore the word evolution, a word they initially hoped to excise from the school curriculum.
The dozen or so science teachers will rewrite the portion of the curriculum so that evolution is specifically mentioned, not just the phrase changes over time, as they first suggested.
The revision meeting wont be open to the public, but the new proposal will be made public in about a week, said Kirk Englehardt, a spokesman for the Department of Education. The revisions will be presented to the 13-member school board, which must ultimately approve the new curriculum.
Education officials hope a quick revision will end the well-publicized flap over the e word in Georgia schools. Educators say they never intended to discourage the teaching of evolution, but hoped to avoid controversy by taking the word evolution out of the required curriculum.
Science teachers, college professors and others nationwide scoffed at the idea. Republican Superintendent Kathy Cox, who initially defended the removal of the word evolution, reversed her position after about a week of intense criticism.
The superintendent changed her mind on evolution, but Cox is prepared to fight some state legislation proposed in the wake of the controversy. Some House Democrats have suggested that Georgias curriculum be required to conform to national standards, but Englehardt said Cox had strong reservations about such a move.
There is no such thing as a national curriculum, Englehardt said.
Questions, controversy abound
New curriculum phased in beginning in fall 2004BY CANDY WAYLOCK
Waylock5@aol.com
NorthFulton.com
2/11/2004
http://www.northfulton.com/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=%7B0B91D229-AD28-483B-AA3C-9D54C2A464F7%7DA crowd composed largely of teachers and students came out Jan. 29 to the town hall meeting hosted by state School Superintendent Kathy Cox who vowed, "Georgia will lead the nation in improving student achievement."
While Cox tried to keep the focus on overall plans for raising achievement, it was apparent the new state curriculum, the Georgia Performance Standards, was foremost on the minds of many in the audience.
Earlier that day, Cox had defended herself in a press conference over the proposal to take the word "evolution" out of the state's textbooks when the new curriculum is introduced next school year.
"We want the public to read the actual document which is in draft form," urged Cox, who maintains a lot of misinformation is being circulated about the changes. "During this time of public input we are using the feedback [we are receiving], to help us make final revisions to the proposed curriculum."
She has since changed her opinion, after weeks of both local and national scrutiny, and will recommend the word "evolution" not be exchanged for "biological changes over time." Cox originally maintained the word was a "buzzword."
"The word itself is so misunderstood, so inflammatory &emdash; the whole monkey to man thing &emdash; and that's not what we're teaching," Cox told the crowd at the Town Hall meeting at Northview High School in Alpharetta. "Let's get the stuff in there and let the students understand the concepts without the [controversial] language."
During a question and answer period, one teacher argued students know what is being taught and substituting words serves only to demean students.
"Students are very sophisticated. They know what is being said, and in their minds it insults their intelligence," said the educator who spoke from the audience.
Again, Cox urged the audience to read the draft before coming to an opinion based solely on what the media is disseminating.
"Look at the document, and if you still feel is not up to standard, then send us those comments," said Cox.
A draft of the Georgia Performance Standards can be viewed at www.gadoe.org and the public comment period runs through mid April. The state board of education will vote on the document in May and the standards will be phased in at the start of the 2004-2005 school year in August.
The Fulton County Board of Education has not taken a stance on the proposed changes to the state curriculum. But board president Katie Reeves is suggesting all teachers read the documents and note the changes, especially those that affect their areas.
"It's a draft document and there are a lot of rumors flying about what's in there and what's not in there," said Reeves. "We've got a lot of gifted teachers in Fulton County and I hope everyone of them looks at the curriculum, especially as it relates their field, and make comments to the state during this period of review."
A spokesperson for the Fulton County School System also said the system is not making any public statements about the new curriculum, noting it is still in draft form and subject to many changes.
When the state department of education rolls out the new Georgia Performance Standards in the 2004-2005 school year it will replace the Quality Core Curriculum (QCC), which has been the standard for curriculums across the state since the mid 1980s. The Performance Standards will now be the blueprint for all curriculum plans and teaching for public schools.
Cox explained the new Georgia Performance Standards were developed over the past several months by teams of teachers and content-area experts from both the state and nation. The team developed the curriculum by drawing on best practices that have proven to be effective in states such as Texas, Michigan, and North Carolina, and in nations such as Japan. Cox noted Georgia is the first state in the nation to adopt the highly successful Japanese-based math standards for its statewide curriculum
Educators have long criticized the QCC for being "a mile wide and an inch deep," said Cox. In fact, an audit of the QCC by Phi Delta Kappa concluded it would take 23 years for students to cover the material in the QCC at the level of depth necessary for real learning to take place.
"Inevitably, teachers used the QCC not as a guide for quality instruction, but as a reference to mention in lesson plans and then place back on the shelf," noted Cox.
Reeves said she's heard the rumblings from people concerned that subject materials are going to be removed from the current curriculum, but understands the reasons why.
"There are going to be things taken out," said Reeves. "We have to prioritize and make better decisions about the curriculum. Right now we have teachers who have to choose what to teach from 23 years worth of materials."
She said the public does not need to get "panic-stricken" just because the curriculum is being condensed.
Again, she urged people to look at the draft documents and determine for themselves, instead of from hearsay, what the new curriculum is all about.
Reeves noted one prevalent rumor circulating is that the Civil War will not be taught beyond the lower grades. However a quick search for the words "Civil War" brought up numerous lessons plans from the high school curriculum.
With the phase in of the Georgia Performance Standards and the phasing out of the QCC next year, testing students will take some balancing. All Georgia students must take the Criterion Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT), which is currently designed around the QCC. This test has taken on even more relevance, as it is the standard by which schools meet or fail the goals of the No Child Left Behind Law.
A spokesperson for the school system said next school year will be used as a training year for teachers on the new performance standards, however those standards will not be taught to students until the following school year. Therefore students will be tested on the QCC materials next school year, with the change to the performance standards coming the following year in the 2005-2006 school year.
Some members of the Town Hall audience were concerned over the tight schedule from development to review to implementation, however Cox maintains there is essentially a 2-year rollout for teachers to get up to speed on the new curriculum.
"The first year will be used for training and support, and testing begins in the second year," said Cox.
Don't Leave Georgia's Children Behind
Alan I. Leshner
AAAS CEO
AAAS Press Release
10 February 2004
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0210childbhnd.shtmlAt a time when educators and legislators across the nation are trying to find the best ways to guarantee that no child is left behind, Georgia's youth now risk receiving an inadequate education that will make them stragglers in this age of science and technology: The Georgia Department of Education has scrubbed important concepts about evolution from the proposed science learning standards for high-school students.
Fear of debate over "the man-monkey thing," as one local teacher described it, could leave Georgia's students lagging behind their peers from other regions. The current situation is sadly ironic, given Georgia's heritage of discovery and innovation-from the pre-historic days of North Georgia's native mound builders, to the Spanish exploration of South Georgia some 500 years ago.
Erasing evolution from the science curriculum may stave off controversy with creationists, "intelligent design" advocates and others with differing viewpoints. But, it also will mean Georgia's students don't understand the full range of core scientific concepts.
The Department of Education's initial goal was commendable. By revising the curriculum to emphasize deeper, more meaningful knowledge of key concepts, they sought to improve students' performance. The need for such reform is clear: Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores by Georgia high-school seniors in 2002-2003 were the lowest among all 50 states, averaging 984 out of a possible 1,600 points, better only than the District of Columbia, and much lower than the national average of 1,026.
In preparing draft standards, Georgia officials sought permission from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world's largest general science society, to draw upon our national Project 2061 benchmarks-- so named because all students should understand basic science principles by the year Halley's Comet reappears.
Imagine our surprise to find that the resulting Georgia text omits large portions of the Project 2061 evolution benchmarks for grades 9-12, whereas other sections on life-science goals, from heredity to the diversity of life, remain intact in their entirety. Curiously missing from the proposed Georgia standards are our benchmarks dealing with such basic concepts as the origins of life on Earth; common descent; mechanisms of natural selection; information on how natural selection and common descent provide a scientific explanation for evidence in the fossil record; and the similarity within the diversity of existing organisms.
Moreover, one section of the Georgia draft could open the door for teaching non-science based concepts such as creationism or intelligent design theory in science classrooms, and that would be wrong. The scientific community respects diverse viewpoints, and we have no problem, of course, with teaching philosophy and moral concepts in non-science courses. But, such concepts should not be taught as equivalent to scientific theories in science classrooms, lest we mislead students about the criteria for something to be considered scientific. To reap the full benefits of science and technology, it is just as important to know what is and isn't science-based, as it is to know the scientific content itself.
We can understand why state officials may have preferred to side-step evolution: Nobody loves controversy when it's pointed at them, and Georgia's education officials have seen more than their fair share of the stick's sharp end lately. Less than two years ago, debate erupted in Cobb County when the District School Board affixed "disclaimer stickers" to science textbooks, erroneously alerting students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Though the Board's position softened somewhat following a lawsuit, it's clear that Georgia educators are challenged to navigate many complex sensitivities concerning evolution.
But, sticking our heads in the sand-or sticking disclaimers on textbooks-- won't make evolution go away: It will only place Georgia students at a disadvantage in the race to secure slots at top universities, and later, in the workforce and the global arena.
From Atlanta's Olympic Village to Valdosta's Spanish moss and red-clay roads, Georgia is rich in natural and cultural diversity, built on a heritage of discovery. We urge state officials to honor Georgia's legacy of learning, by restoring the fundamental concept of evolution, now universally accepted within the scientific community, to the science learning standards for high-school students. Georgia students deserve no less than youth throughout the rest of the United States.
Why won't Kathy Cox tell motives for changes?
Colin Campbell
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thursday, February 12, 2004
http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epaper/editions/today/metro_04b2d1a43733812a00d3.htmlFirst, state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox took the word "evolution" out of Georgia's proposed biology curriculum. She called it provocative and replaced it with "biological changes over time." She also argued that other theories of origin, such as "intelligent design," should be taught.
Then, after an uproar, she reinstated "evolution."
And then on Wednesday the Georgia Board of Education announced that it "expects the new Georgia curriculum to be world-class, beginning with full inclusion of the recognized national standards in each curriculum area." Cox seemed ready to go along, perhaps by reinstating all the other stuff about evolution she has removed.
But wait. Why the changes in the first place? The question demands an answer.
There were passages in the proposed curriculum, written by distinguished national scientific groups, that described the four-billion-year age of the Earth. Cox deleted them. The proposed curriculum discussed the slow development of today's life forms from one-cell organisms. That was removed as well. The proposed curriculum described natural selection. It got cut.
There were careful references to the importance of Darwin, to the apparent randomness of evolution, and more. All that vanished under Cox's care.
Yet she refuses to be questioned in detail about these changes, which she evidently made by big-footing her own biology committee.
On Tuesday I asked again for an interview, e-mailing her spokesman, Kirk Englehardt, that I wanted to ask Cox who, if anyone, had helped her change the curriculum in the first place. Also, "Where and when did Ms. Cox learn about 'intelligent design' [a religious explanation with scientific trappings] as an alternative theory worth teaching in Georgia's biology classes?"
Englehardt e-mailed back that "we are no longer doing interviews on this topic."
I asked for clarification. The response: "We are now focused on the topic of improving education in the state of Georgia."
I think an important elected official should be held to a higher standard of openness. What happened? Did creationists try to hijack our biology classes?
Remember, they've tried that in other places. In 2001, opponents of evolution helped persuade U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum to amend the administration's education bill so it would urge schools "where biological evolution is taught" to give other theories a say. The Senate passed the amendment, and creationists and proponents of intelligent design rejoiced. But many scientific groups objected, and the amendment failed in the House.
Most creationist attempts to downgrade evolution have been focused more at the state and local levels.
"Ever since the Supreme Court decided in 1987 that Louisiana could not constitutionally require teachers to give equal time to teaching creation science and evolution," Jay Wexler wrote last year in the Vanderbilt Law Review, "critics of evolution have adopted a variety of new strategies to change the way in which public schools present the subject. . . . These strategies have included teaching evolution as a 'theory' rather than as a fact, . . . teaching arguments against evolution, teaching the allegedly nontheistic theory of intelligent design instead of creationism, . . . [and] changing the word 'evolution' in state science standards to something less controversial. . . ."
These strategies are being tried in Georgia today. Why won't Kathy Cox tell us more?
Left out of state's proposed curriculum
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/11/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/12curricsidea.htmlGeorgia 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
http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/ch5/ch5.htm#DiversityOfLife
Board of Education's Statement
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/11/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/12curricsideb.htmlBelow is the text of a statement the state Board of Education will read at a meeting Thursday morning. The state board will have the final say over what is and is not in Georgia's new curriculum. There was no formal vote, but the statement was agreed upon by consensus.
Statement of Expectations for the new Georgia Curriculum
By the Georgia Board of Education
2/12/04The Georgia Board of Education expects the new Georgia curriculum to be world-class, beginning with full inclusion of the recognized national standards in each curriculum area, and enhanced by proven curriculum successes both within the state and beyond. We expect the new Georgia curriculum to be in alignment with national assessments.
The Georgia Board of Education expects the new Georgia curriculum to be a document which is embraced by education professionals, respected internationally, and will result in Georgia leading the nation in improving student achievement.
The Georgia Board of Education recognizes our state curriculum as a living document, requiring continuous improvement and professional learning.
The Georgia Board of Education knows that the success of such a curriculum will depend on aggressive support of teachers and local system leaders in its implementation.
Let the word go out that the Georgia Board of Education fully intends to provide this support to educators and seek the funding necessary for its successful implementation.
Evolution: Board wants to use national standards
By DANA TOFIG and MARY MacDONALD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2/12/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204a/12curriculum.htmlWithout using the word "evolution," the state Board of Education made it clear Wednesday it thinks the scientific theory should be taught to Georgia's students in its entirety.
During an hourlong discussion, the state board put together a public statement that calls for all areas of the state's new curriculum to be "world-class, beginning with the full inclusion of the recognized national standards in each curriculum area. . . ."
That includes national science standards, which call for teaching evolution and using the word in the classroom. The state Board of Education -- which has the final vote on the curriculum -- will read the statement at a meeting this morning.
The statement comes two weeks after a national furor erupted over state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox's decision to remove the word "evolution" and some of the related concepts from the proposed science curriculum. State Board of Education Chairwoman Wanda Barrs said the board statement was meant to express its opinion on the process -- not serve as a rebuke.
"I am just so pleased at the dedication of this board and this superintendent to excellence," Barrs said. "Notice I didn't say perfection. I said excellence." Scientists and educators were generally pleased with the board's statement, but said they will continue to watch the process.
"This is my home state," said Wes McCoy, a 26-year teacher of biology at North Cobb High School. "I don't want Georgia to get a black eye over doing something silly with something so important. The science teachers I've talked to have said, 'We've tried to get national standards adopted for 10 years now. And here it is, we're about to get it done, and now we have these curious deletions.' "
Teams of teachers and expert advisers in each curriculum area met for several months to write new, more rigorous standards for Georgia's students. The team that wrote the biology standards had recommended full adoption of the American Association for the Advancement of Science standards, which included a full discussion of evolution.
Cox said she removed the word "evolution" and several passages detailing how it should be taught, including sections on the age of Earth and natural selection. The theory of evolution has been controversial for decades because some parents believe it contradicts their belief that God created human beings and the Earth.
Cox said she was hoping to avoid the political controversy over the origin of man while still giving teachers leeway to teach some of its concepts. She reversed herself last week, saying she would recommend that the word "evolution" be put back in the curriculum, but was silent on whether all the related passages would be reinstated.
James Rutherford, the former director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was a consultant on the science curriculum and said he hoped the board's statement means Georgia will follow the original recommendation of the teachers and specialists.
"That's an excellent step forward as long as they can be sure the staff incorporates those properly," Rutherford said. "All they have to do is copy it out of the documents."
The team of teachers who wrote the biology curriculum will meet today to propose changes to the evolution portion, which will then be voted on next week at a special meeting of the state board. Through their statement, board members made it clear Wednesday they felt that if national standards were going to be used, all of the concepts should be included.
"We should not try to take out parts of it, unless we absolutely have come to some sort of agreement," member Joy Berry said.
The five-paragraph statement also calls for the curriculum to be a "living document, requiring continuous improvement and professional learning" and emphasizes the need for funds for teacher training.
Another attempt to deny evolution
James O. Goldsborough
THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
February 12, 2004
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/goldsborough/20040212-9999_mz1e12golds.htmlThe state of Georgia last month ordered a ban on the word "evolution" from its science classrooms. The state school superintendent ordered the word removed from all textbooks.
Thanks to the intervention of former President Jimmy Carter, schools superintendent Kathy Cox, an elected official, was compelled to rescind her order. Charles Darwin's name can remain in Georgia textbooks, along with those of Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and others who have made their little contributions to our understanding of things.
One cannot help wonder what would have become of the schoolchildren of the modern state of Georgia if Carter did not happen to live there. We like to believe we have come a long way from that steamy Dayton, Tenn., courtroom in 1925, when America gave to a laughing world the so-called "monkey trial" of John Scopes. Scopes was a high school biology teacher charged with illegally teaching the theory of evolution.
From the back hills of Tennessee and Georgia, to the plains of Kansas and the foothills of California (Vista), the common complaint against evolution is that it's "only a theory." So said the Kansas Board of Education when it banned the teaching of evolution in Kansas schools in 1999, arguing it was no more "provable" than creationism, the Bible's story of how human life was created.
In each of these cases &endash; Georgia, 2004; Kansas, 1999; California, 1994; and Tennessee, 1925 &endash; individuals denying the facts of science sought to deny them to schoolchildren as well. Misunderstanding that religion and science occupy separate places in our lives &endash; one dealing with facts, the other with beliefs &endash; they made them into antagonists.
One doesn't normally think of modern Georgia as a backwater. But when an elected superintendent of schools bans evolution because, she says, it's "a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction," we have to wonder how far Georgia has come since Scopes.
Ask this: How did Cox's action differ from that of the Roman Inquisition, which demanded that Galileo recant his theory (from Copernicus) of the Earth's revolution around the sun? Revolution, said the Inquisition, didn't square with a literal interpretation of Scripture. For example, Joshua 10:13: "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven;" and Isaiah 40:22: " ... the heavens stretched out as a curtain" above "the circle of the Earth."
Speaking, "as a Christian and a trained engineer and scientist," Carter accused Cox of "an attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students." He said the schools superintendent opened Georgia's education system to "nationwide ridicule." Carter got no support from Georgia's unenlightened governor, Sonny Perdue, who said it was up to Cox to make "these kinds of curriculum decisions."
Sorry, guv, it's not. When a statewide education system falls to the creationists, the governor has a responsibility to remind people we are not back in 1925, let alone the Inquisition's 1633. The modern state of Georgia has pretensions. The Georgia Institute of Technology, for example, bills itself as "one of the nation's top research universities, distinguished by its commitment to improving the human condition through advanced science and technology."
Georgia Tech would need to go out of state for its students if Cox had her way. Ignoring 150 years of advances in biology, Cox objected to evolution because, she said, people might think Georgia was "teaching the monkeys-to-man sort of thing."
Teaching biology without evolution, which Cox would have done, is like teaching physics without Newton or philosophy without Plato. You deny students the great intellectual frameworks for learning. Darwin called natural selection "the main means explaining the modification of species." More than a century later, Stephen Jay Gould called it, "the genealogical connection of all organisms."
The creationists lose these battles, but keep coming back. They must be watched. They keep their intentions private, then spring them on unsuspecting publics, as in Georgia. It took Kansans three years to replace their creationist school board. It took Vista voters almost as long.
The "it's only a theory" argument against evolution is rooted in ignorance. Once science is satisfied that observable evidence through controlled testing validates a hypothesis, it can label the conclusions theory or law, it doesn't matter. Newton's laws of motion are the basis for his theory of gravitation, though it could as easily be the other way around.
We may not like the idea that homo sapiens are here because our ancestors crawled out of some prehistoric slime and escaped predators (rather than popping into existence in Eden), but there is all that evidence for it.
The latest creationist trick is so-called "intelligent design." According to intelligent design, natural selection is insufficient to explain the DNA mutations necessary to create homo sapiens. God must have directed the process.
The answer to that is a simple: God may exist, who knows? But God isn't needed to explain natural selection. DNA mutations are quite capable of getting us out of the slime.
Children can learn about God in church. In schools, we teach science.
Goldsborough can be reached via e-mail at jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com.
Professor fights against 'evolution' ban
Emory anthropologist works to keep 'evolution' in schoolsBy Drew Paul
The Emory Wheel
February 13, 2004
http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/13/402c3cd8c06ccAn Emory professor recently joined the fight to keep the word "evolution" in Georgia classrooms despite a proposal to ban it from the state curriculum.
Anthropology Professor Benjamin Freed said policy makers who would remove the word from classrooms are doing students a disservice by disregarding national standards and omitting several key biological concepts.
"Evolution is the core component of biology," he said. "[Its omission] really takes away from a skill set that every student needs to have."
Freed said the state School Board was scheduled to meet yesterday to revise the curriculum. State Superintendent Kathy Cox ('86C, '90G) recanted on her suggestion last month that would have removed the word "evolution" from middle and high school curricula. She first urged that the term be replaced by the phrase "biological changes over time" but changed her mind in the face of widespread public criticism.
Cox had said the concept of evolution would still be taught, but the word would not be used. Other changes that may have been discussed at the meeting include changes to the history curriculum and the postponement of discussions of plate tectonics and other concepts until high school.
The Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education, an organization Freed cofounded, said the state's proposal to eliminate references to the Big Bang Theory, evolution and the Earth's age violate national standards advocated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
AAAS CEO Alan Leshner wrote an editorial on the organization's Web site saying the Georgia Department of Education has "scrubbed important concepts about evolution" from the curriculum.
"What we see is not pleasant at all," Freed said. "I think it is a terrible disservice to call it a world-class curriculum if it can't meet national standards."
Cox asked for public feedback on the debate before the state Board of Education votes in May.
Taking Cox up on her offer, GCISE recently hosted a week-long workshop that showed educators how to teach evolution and gave teachers a chance to meet policy makers face to face.
Pat Marsteller, director of the Center for Science Education and lecturer in the biology department, said the forum has been "instrumental in getting science teachers to talk about the issue."
But Freed said the opinions of professors were largely ignored when the proposal was created.
"A number of faculty are getting very concerned about it," he said.
Emory would "have to deal with the product" if students do not understand basic biology, Freed said, who has a seven-year-old child in the Cobb County Public School District.
"I wouldn't want to see Georgia students coming in with a disadvantage to other students," he said.
Freed helped form GCISE in 2002 in response to efforts to ban the teaching of evolution from Cobb County schools. The organization, which includes teachers, Emory faculty and concerned citizens, was created to ensure students received an adequate education in biology, Freed said.
"[GCISE] helped galvanize a group of common citizens to try to promote the best available science," he said.
Georgians have a 90-day period ending in April to affect the shape of the new curriculum.
"There are a lot of inflamed passions," Freed said. "If scientists don't speak up, there will be problems. ... Everyone should be looking at the curriculum and helping to provide change."
The Untidiness of Thinking
EDITORIAL
Los Angeles Times
2004/02/11
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-georgia11feb11,1,1438439.storySo, in the interests of better educating the children, Georgia's state superintendent of schools, Kathy Cox, proposed deleting the word "evolution" from the science curriculum. Obviously, this is an excellent idea that avoids unkempt discussions or uncomfortable questions about how Earth and its life forms evolved, er, developed over many millenniums. If you're elected like Cox, your political sense has evolved, er, developed through time and elections wherein only the fittest survive. As a result, her thinking quickly evolved too. So Cox now has deleted her deletion proposal. Evolution is inspiring.
A sincere belief is one thing. Honest teaching is another. Public education in a diverse democracy should reflect the concerns and needs of a varied society. Otherwise, we'd still burn witches and drive horses to town. Ah, but fears are something else. If a sector's beliefs in a sacred Creation are so fragile they cannot bear the weight of class discussions, then perhaps, sadly, they're en route to the same extinction as dinosaurs and Studebakers. Many can perceive both a divine spirit and a miraculous evolution, er, species development, in history.
Cox's monkey business is prehistoric. She says science teachers wouldn't have been forbidden to teach evolution, er, "biological changes over time." Right. Teachers too can foresee political storms if they stray beyond an "official curriculum" to teach what a vocal local few don't want to hear.
While we're discussing deleting stuff like evolution, let's grow the list. That's what happens with censorship. Take the Confederacy? Please. Why not remove that unwelcome word with its unsavory economic rationale for suppressing a race and killing a half-million Civil War troops. Just teach about fighting. Combat's more exciting than reasoning anyway. Also tobacco, peanuts and onions. Even thinking of them causes bad memories, allergic reactions and gas. Just study flax. It's safe. Every geography book teaches flax. Who could object? Nobody knows what flax is for anyway.
Banning ideas and study worked so well during the Dark Ages that societies were able to repeat many tragedies and stupidities with little effort. It's a shame to miss another fight over evolution. But we hope Cox's thinking continues to evolve with her peers' and recognizes the enduring brain power forged from examining, not indoctrinating. After all, without evolution, the Atlanta Braves would still be playing in Boston or Milwaukee.
Science teachers vote to keep evolution in the school books
Assocated Press [carried on AccessNorthGa.com]
2004/02/13
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=31298ATLANTA - A group of science teachers on Thursday decided to keep evolution in the proposed changes to Georgias science curriculum.
The group met for more than three hours Thursday night at Douglas County High School. Kathy Cox, state schools Superintendent, had called for the group of about a dozen educators to return to work earlier than teams working on other areas of Georgias curriculum.
Education officials hope the quick revision will end the well-publicized flap over the teaching of evolution in Georgia schools.
Were empowering the teachers of Georgia to teach science as it should be taught, said Stephen Pruitt, the states science curriculum specialist. No teacher will have to stand in front of the Board of Education or anybody else and have to defend why they are teaching evolution.
Cox has assembled teams from every subject area to help revise a Georgia curriculum critics say is too broad.
Late last month, Cox proposed removing the word evolution from the states science curriculum, replacing it with biological changes over time.
She said the concept would still be taught, but said she hoped removing the word would take pressure off of teachers in socially conservative areas where it causes controversy among some parents and school officials.
Science teachers, college professors and others nationwide scoffed at the idea.
The vast majority of scientists believe the theory of evolution _ which states that all living life forms evolved from earlier, more primitive life forms _ is the basis for the teaching of biology.
Some religious beliefs do not accept that view.
Former President Jimmy Carter and Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue were among the public leaders who spoke out against the proposal.
Cox changed her mind on the change, announcing on Feb. 5 that the word evolution would be returned to the states curriculum.
Even then, some scientists complained that changes to the curriculum weakened the teaching of the concept.
Now, Department of Education officials say wording has been restored that brings Georgia in line with most national teaching standards.
Biology standards reset to cover evolution
By MARY MacDONALD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02/13/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204/13evolution.htmlA panel of science teachers gathered Thursday at a Douglas County high school to try to put the debate over the teaching of evolution to rest in Georgia.
Called together at the request of state School Superintendent Kathy Cox, the group of science teachers and university professors met for more than three hours and reached consensus that students should be taught a full range of concepts related to evolution.
George Stickel, science curriculum coordinator for the Cobb County school system, said the group is recommending that the curriculum include "the key concepts so that students understand the science."
Panel members would not discuss their recommendation in more detail.
The regrouping came a day after the Georgia Board of Education, which has the final say on the curriculum, issued a statement calling for national standards in all areas of the curriculum, including science education.
The same panel of teachers, together with a panel of science curriculum experts, had previously recommended detailed teaching standards on evolution. But many of those standards, and the word "evolution" itself, were deleted by Cox from the proposal for high school biology released for public review on Jan. 12.
She reversed herself Feb. 5, saying her deletion of the word had been a mistake.
She said she removed "evolution" because she wanted to avoid the controversy that has beset many teachers in communities where the theory is often challenged.
"The political consideration was thinking about the teacher on the front line of a classroom in Georgia, and recognizing that people do have misinterpretations of that terminology," Cox said last month before her reversal.
"And how can we give them a document that works for them and works for their students, without having people jump to conclusions about what they are or aren't doing in their classrooms."
Evolution, the theory that all living things evolved from earlier, more primitive forms, is considered by many scientists to be the basis of biology.
But its teaching has been controversial for decades because it conflicts with some religious beliefs about the origins of life.
The process that led to Cox's proposal took more than a year and began under her predecessor. Once Cox took office, she divided the work in different subject areas among teams of teachers and curriculum experts.
Only the teacher committee for science reconvened Thursday, to specifically reconsider the biology proposal. Cox already has said she wants the word "evolution" placed back in the proposal but she has not indicated whether she supports restoring other passages that detailed how evolution should be taught.
The state Board of Education announced its intentions Wednesday, saying it wants the Georgia curriculum to be "world-class, beginning with the full inclusion of the recognized national standards in each curriculum area."
The state board will hold a special meeting Thursday to discuss the biology curriculum.
Cox's revised science curriculum includes evolution, big bang
By MARY MACDONALD
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02/13/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204/13curriculum.htmlGeorgia's school superintendent issued a revised biology proposal Friday that includes a complete set of evolution standards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the national source initially recommended by science teachers.
The revised proposal will go to the state Board of Education on Thursday. If it is approved, it will be posted for public comment for the next several months before returning to the board for consideration in May.
Superintendent Kathy Cox's revised plan for biology comes three weeks after a furor that attracted national attention. She initially had released a draft that removed the word "evolution" and many concepts explaining the theory. The middle and high school science standards are being revised as part of a massive overhaul of state curriculum.
In a statement, Cox thanked a committee of teachers who had reconvened Thursday to discuss the standards. The same panel had initially recommended a full treatment of evolution, considered by most scientists the basis of biology. Evolution is a scientific theory that holds that all living things developed over time from earlier, more primitive forms.
Said Cox: "I have reviewed the work of the teacher teams on the biology curriculum, and have accepted their recommendations, which I will present to the state Board of Education for approval on Feb. 19."
Friday's draft also reinstated an expectation that middle school students discuss the big-bang theory and how the universe was formed. The theory -- by name and description -- had been eliminated in the proposed middle school and high school science curriculum.
The big-bang theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origins of the universe. The theory explains that the universe was created between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago when a cosmic explosion hurled matter in all directions. As the universe expanded, common particles were formed. These particles would become the building blocks of matter and life, scientists say.
Face to face with evolution
AJC readers relish being put to the testBy MATTHEW GROBER
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2004/02/15
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/15evolution.htmlI am overwhelmed. More than 2,200 people took my evolution quiz on ajc.com last week. More than a dozen contacted me directly with questions or comments. And that's great news.
As we in Georgia discuss public school science standards and the proper place of evolution studies in the classroom, I've been thinking about folks who are past school age. These are people who must take an active part in discussions and policy. To what extent do everyday people understand key points about evolution?
I developed this quiz to touch on key misunderstood aspects of evolution.
Now I have the opportunity to comment on these issues, after folks have had some time to chew on them. I think the chewing is important. Education is certainly about getting the facts straight, but it is also about learning to evaluate and process those facts, and then integrate them into an expanding understanding of "life, the universe and everything."
I thank everyone for participating and I thank some colleagues for reviewing this article in an effort to keep my facts straight.
Question 1. True or false: The design of animal systems (eyes, ovaries, spleens, etc.) is perfectly adapted to each animal's environment because of the millions of years over which natural selection has worked on existing variation.
Answer: False. Most said true (67 percent). Adaptations are not perfect because they are made from whatever materials are available. There is no premeditated choice of what will come to pass, just a variety of existing options, with some that work and persist.
The reproductive system of women is a telling example. Sure it works pretty well, but it's riddled with design flaws. The egg ruptures from the side of the ovary (ouch) and is set afloat in the body cavity to find its way to the fallopian tube, which is not directly connected to the ovary. Sure, signals are sent out to guide it, but why leave the egg afloat when it's easy enough to make a tube that directly connects to the ovary? Because of this "imperfect" design, sometimes the egg develops inside the tube, a dangerous location.
These descriptions give the impression of the duct tape and hacksaw approach rather than intelligent design. Selective forces are dynamic. So, given the less than optimal building materials and the dynamic forces of selection, living organisms aren't perfectly designed, but they work well enough to persist. Life is all about persistence.
Question 2. True or false: The concept of evolution (change over time) was first put forth by Charles Darwin in his now famous book on "The Origin of Species."
Answer: False. Most said true (57 percent). Evolution was not Darwin's key contribution. Geologists and biologists before Darwin noted that the Earth and its inhabitants change over time. They contributed to Darwin's thinking. What set Darwin apart, in biology and in history, was that he provided a mechanism -- natural selection -- for how evolution worked. In so doing he gave us a way to understand and, in fact, test hypotheses about the pattern and process of evolution. The reason we still accept and investigate the idea of evolution via natural selection is because his proposed mechanism has undergone many tests and has fared remarkably well.
Question 3. True or false: Many of the early naturalists (1600s to mid-1800s) whose work cataloged and classified species on Earth were working for the greater glory of God and did not believe forms could change over time.
Answer: True. Most said true (74 percent). Science and religion need not be antagonistic forces. Science is a method for discovering and testing the rules that govern the physical world. It has no hold on our metaphysical views, nor do most religions preclude the pursuit of knowledge regarding the generation of biological diversity. Significant scientific discoveries have come from people who hold a wide range of religious views.
Question 4. The best estimate of the age of the Earth is:
A. 6,000 years
B. 250 million years
C. 50,000 years
D. 4.5 billion yearsAnswer: 4.5 billion years (4 percent said 6,000 years; 14 percent said 250 million; 1 percent said 50,000 and 81 percent hit the nail on the head). Bottom line here is that there's been plenty of time for selection to act. Sometimes you need a lot of time, while in other cases (like bacterial resistance to antibiotics -- see below) evolution can occur on a much shorter time scale.
Question 5. When an antibiotic is used too often in the treatment of some bacterial infections, the bacteria can develop a resistance to the antibiotic. A key reason for the development of antibiotic resistance is:
A. Bacteria compete with humans for access to resources
B. Bacteria reproduce more rapidly than humans develop antibiotics
C. In order to succeed, many bacteria come genetically equipped to deal with all types of antibioticsAnswer: The best answer is B. (7 percent said A; 36 percent B; 57 percent C). The bacteria in question see humans as their resources, so that eliminates A. C may seem reasonable, but bacteria can't come equipped to deal with all types of antibiotics, because other organisms are in the process of evolving new antibiotics to keep themselves from succumbing to these bacterial pests. Scientists are studying these promising species to learn their antibiotic secrets. B -- What we're really talking about is generation time, not chronological time. Evolution comes about by selection acting over many generations. Bacteria reproduce in as little as 20 minutes, so they can produce dozens of generations in a single day. If bacteria, like people, reproduced two to five copies of themselves every 50 to 70 years, we wouldn't have to worry about them. But some bacteria can make two to five copies before lunch.
Question 6. True or false: Apart from understanding animal and perhaps human origins and relationships, the study of evolution has provided discoveries of great economic value to human societies.
Answer: True. Most people said this was true (84 percent). Folks nailed this one, but what are the significant contributions? Some would say increased production in domesticated livestock, but that was really going quite well before we understood natural selection. There's Darwinian medicine (selection in a vial in the quest of evolving new chemical / biological therapies), but it is still in its infancy. Understanding the origins of the HIV or SARS virus and how they change are questions answered by scientists with a sound understanding of evolution. Understanding the origins and mechanisms of insecticide resistance in insects plays a major role in farming practices. Last but not least, knowledge of the fossil record is very important in oil exploration.
Question 7. True or false: One problem with studying evolution is that you can't test scientific hypotheses concerning plants or animals that have long been extinct.
Answer: False. Most people said this was false (66 percent). It is very straightforward to test hypotheses using the fossil record. The idea that birds and dinosaurs were related was first proposed in the late 1800s and recent fossil discoveries in China (e.g., "feathered dinosaurs") have now allowed us to test this 100-plus-year-old idea. Another example is how our ideas about whale evolution have changed with the discovery of more fossils. Finally, our ideas about relationships between animal groups that have been based on the fossil record are generally supported by DNA data, an independent test of these hypotheses.
Question 8. True or false: Since fish (as a group) appear in the fossil record before humans, then all fish species must be more ancient than the human species.
Answer: False. Most people said this was false (79 percent). Since I spend most of my time studying fish, I am overjoyed with this result! In short, although some fish evolved millions of years ago and have not changed much since then (like sharks), there are species of fish, like some minnows, that are recent arrivals. It is relatively easy for freshwater fish to get "trapped" in a secluded environment (like when a river doubles back on itself and in time leaves a small isolated pond in its wake). So groups of fishes continue to be reproductively isolated in small populations, and this is generally recognized as a key step in at least one pathway toward the evolution of a new species.
Question 9. True or false: Genetic mutation is the primary way by which variation is generated in animals.
Answer: False. Most people said this was true (70 percent). Mutation can generate lots of genetic novelty and is the ultimate source of variation. However, for most animals on earth, sex generates more variation than mutation. You can think about the generation of variation like the movie business. Mutation would be like a new idea or plot line. It arises spontaneously and is most often not useful, but on rare occasions is successful. In sexual reproduction, recombination takes these new ideas and combines them in a variety of ways with a smorgasbord of existing ideas and techniques. "Mutation" may generate a new plot line (e.g., coming of age) but recombination then "produces" a hundred variations on that theme (from "the Graduate" to "American Pie").
Question 10. In answering these questions, I went to the following places for information:
A. The Web
B. Books
C. Both the Web and books
D. I did not look for any new information (answered based upon what you already knew)98 percent of respondents did not look up any new information in completing their quiz.
Question 11. When I answered these questions, my views on evolution were:
A. It is a robust scientific theory on the level of gravity or plate tectonics
B. It is a fable constructed by fringe scientists to discredit religious dogma
C. it is a developing hypothesis that still requires rigorous testing before we can accept any part of it.71 percent went with the robust theory, 5 percent see evolution as a fable, and 23 percent are still dubious. I guess I can live with these numbers, but hope that this article will begin to make a difference here.
So what did I take home from this process? First, I hope that people who took this quiz have begun to appreciate arguments and facts from scientists. People took the time to complete the quiz, and they have taken the time to discuss the questions and answers. And that was my goal. If you want more information, a good place to start is the understanding evolution Web site at evolution.berkeley.edu. You may also access more than 111,000 articles in scholarly journals over the past 30 years.
Yet, what I really took home from this quiz was a question. I wondered why some people have difficulty discussing and appreciating biological evolution. I went to Zoo Atlanta last week to take a picture with a fellow primate (big thanks to the staff). I spent some time observing a beautiful, rare gorilla, while the ape watched me.
I also watched an orang mom and her baby. I reflected on our biological similarities. We are made of the same stuff (mostly carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus). We are all a small subset of vertebrates (which are dominated by fish) notable for having traits such as hair and lactation (mammals). Within mammals we share much anatomy, behavior and DNA sequences with our fellow primates (see the photo on the @issue section front).
In some very fundamental way, they are as much a part of us as we are a part of them. Maybe the problem with issues of biology education isn't our inability to understand the pattern and process of evolution, but rather our inability to understand ourselves.
Matthew Grober is an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University.
Evolution a fit survivor
Cox now wants inclusionBy MARY MacDONALD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02/13/04
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0204/14evolution.htmlGeorgia students will get strengthened evolution instruction in science classes under revised standards proposed Friday by state School Superintendent Kathy Cox.
The latest revision reinserts the word "evolution" and a set of national standards that Cox had initially removed from the teaching plan. The standards include a detailed explanation of natural selection and statements such as: "Life on Earth is thought to have begun as simple, one-celled organisms about 4 billion years ago."
The reversal came after Cox endured a backlash from parents, teachers and politicians because she had recommended replacing the word "evolution" with the phrase "biological changes over time," and removed many of the standards that require teachers to convey a full understanding of evolution.
Cox has apologized and said she deleted the references because she was trying to avoid controversy and help teachers withstand community challenges to the teaching of evolution.
The new proposal includes standards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a respected source recommended by science teachers and curriculum experts.
For the second time, the panel of middle and high school science teachers on Thursday advised Cox to include the national standards. The panel considered the advice of biology professors representing the state university system and the science coordinator for the Cobb County schools, Georgia's second-largest public system.
Two years ago, the Cobb system weathered a debate over evolution after some parents challenged its inclusion in textbooks. The system added a disclaimer to all science textbooks but continues to teach evolution.
Scientists say the latest version is a vast improvement.
"It's all back," said Jo Ellen Roseman, director of the education benchmark program for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Now, teachers will need to cover the material effectively, using classroom lessons and readings from textbooks.
"The fact that they're in the standards is a very important first step," Roseman said, "and Georgia should be proud of that. This is a very powerful set of standards."
Earlier this week, the state Board of Education, which has the final say on the curriculum, said it wanted Georgia to draw on national standards for all of its major courses. In a prepared statement, Cox said Friday she was confident "the document not only meets national standards, but will deliver the world-class curriculum that our board has requested and that our students and teachers deserve."
She would not speak further, a spokesman said. But the state's coordinator for science curriculum, Stephen Pruitt, said Cox accepted the recommendation from the teacher panel. "We wanted it to be representative of the [national] benchmarks and we wanted to make sure the clarity was there."
In addition to the strengthened explanation of evolution, the new version includes more concepts that students will have to understand, points that could become the basis for revised questions on the state curriculum exam. They require students to examine the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection, specifically "development of the theory," "the history of life," "fossil and biochemical evidence," "mechanisms of evolution" and applications including "pesticide and antibiotic resistance."
The biology proposal goes to the state Board of Education on Thursday. If approved, it will be presented for public comment for the next several months. The state board is expected to vote in May on a new curriculum for core courses in four subject areas, including science.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Incorporate controversy into the curriculumBy STEPHEN C. MEYER and JOHN ANGUS CAMPBELL
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2004/02/15
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/15design.htmlWhat should public schools teach about Darwin's theory? Should science educators discuss -- or not even mention -- the theory of evolution?
Many educators wish these questions would simply go away. On the one hand, if science teachers teach Darwinian evolution, many parents and religious activists will protest. On the other, if teachers present religiously based theories, civil liberties groups will threaten legal action.
Either way, educators face a no-win situation.
Little wonder, then, that many are seeking a way to finesse the issue. Georgia Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox recently tried to do this by removing the word "evolution" from the state's science standards. When this resulted in a national controversy, she wisely reversed her decision. Now the problem rests with a commission of teachers.
But what should they do? Is there any approach that will satisfy -- if not everybody -- at least most reasonable people?
Surprisingly, there is a way to teach evolution that will benefit students and satisfy all but the most extreme partisans and ideologues. Rather than ignoring the controversy (as many educators have tried to do), teachers should teach about the scientific controversy that now exists over Darwinian evolution. This is simply good education.
When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about the competing perspectives.
In such cases, teachers should not teach as true only one competing view -- just the Republican or just the Democratic view of the New Deal in history class, for example. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy."
But is there really a scientific, as opposed to just a cultural or religious, controversy over evolution?
In fact, there are several scientific controversies about key aspects of evolutionary theory.
First, some scientists doubt the idea that all organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor. Why? Fossil studies reveal a "biological big bang" near the beginning of the Cambrian period (530 million years ago) when many major, separate groups of organisms, or "phyla" (including most basic body plans of modern animals), emerged suddenly without clear precursors.
Fossil finds have repeatedly confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms -- not the gradual branching tree pattern implied by Darwin's common-ancestry thesis.
Support for a new theory
Other scientists doubt the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism. While many scientists accept that natural selection can produce small-scale, "micro-evolutionary" variations, many biologists now doubt that natural selection and random mutations can generate the large-scale changes necessary to produce fundamentally new living forms, such as those that arose in the Cambrian period.
Recently, more than 300 scientists, including professors from institutions such as MIT, Yale, Rice and the University of Georgia, signed a statement questioning the creative power of the selection/mutation mechanism.
Finally, some scientists doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely "appear" designed. They favor a new theory known as "intelligent design." Design advocates, such as Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, martialed some intriguing new evidence in support of their theory, such as the presence of encoded information, circuits and miniature motors inside cells.
Since Darwinian evolution is still the dominant theory of biological origins, we recommend that students not be required to learn the theory of intelligent design. Nevertheless, we think they should learn about the scientific strengths and weaknesses of modern Darwinism. Obviously, teachers should also be free to discuss new evidence-based theories, including Behe's design theory.
Consider all sides
There are many reasons to adopt this approach. First, constitutional law permits "teaching the controversy" about scientific theories of origins. In the controlling Edwards v. Aguillard case, the Supreme Court made clear that state legislatures (and by extension state boards) already have the right to mandate teaching scientific critiques of prevailing theories. Interestingly, the court also determined that teachers have the right to teach students about "a variety of scientific theories about origins . . . with the clear secular intent of enhancing science education."
Second, federal education policy calls for teaching differing scientific views of this controversy. The authoritative report language accompanying the No Child Left Behind act states that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist."
Third, voters overwhelmingly favor this approach. In a recent national Zogby poll, 71 percent of those polled favored teaching both the evidence for and against contemporary Darwinian theory.
Finally, this approach will enhance science instruction. Teaching scientific controversies engages student interest and encourages them to do what scientists must do -- deliberate about how best to interpret evidence.
As Darwin wrote in "The Origin of Species," "a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."
Reader opinions
Responses to 'Kathy Cox's hardest lesson,' Page One, Feb. 8Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2004/02/15
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0204a/15letters.htmlPolitician made ill-advised power play
I'm not sure why The Atlanta Journal-Constitution thought it was necessary to spend nearly two pages trying to salvage Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox's political future. It's easy to imagine Cox and her religious right political handlers crafting the message points. ("A teacher, not a politician . . . her picture with Cub Scouts . . . so upset she ran over the family dog.")
The truth is that Cox is a politician who made an aggressive and ill-advised power play. She failed because there is no credible scientific controversy about evolution, only periodic agitation by a handful of religious extremists.
But troubling questions remain. Disturbing edits to the proposed history curriculum and other changes may never receive the scrutiny they deserve. In the end, those of us with children in the public school system can only hope that our schools can provide a quality education despite the inevitable interference of political hacks such as Cox.
MARK LEDDEN
AtlantaActions drive away supporter
The feel-good article about state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox did not change my newfound opinion of her leadership of Georgia's education.
She may be a nice person, but if calling evolution a "buzzword" and the changes in the history curriculum were her ideas, or those of one of her subordinates, she showed poor judgment in even proposing them. The state needs more in-depth education, not watered-down or simplified courses.
Cox can take it to the bank that I have been "changed over time" from a person who voted for her into one who will vote for her opponent.
JOHN FOSTER
NewnanLack of leadership the greatest concern
Having spoken with Kathy Cox at a meeting last year, I was impressed with her commitment to education in Georgia. Having read about her decision to remove the term evolution from the state curriculum, I continue to respect her as a teacher and an individual. But her explanation for her decision still seems suspicious at best, since the scientific passages that are part of the national standards remain omitted in her reform proposals.
Restoring only the term "evolution" is unacceptable. Unless she provides the leadership to include these accepted scientific concepts, I will continue to question her motives and encourage the voting, taxpaying residents of this state to do the same.
JIM CONNELLY
Atlanta
Evolution not only word missing from proposed curriculum
The Associated Press - ATLANTA
Assocated Press [carried on AccessNorthGa.com]
2004/02/14
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=31352The word evolution has been restored in Georgias proposed science curriculum, but some scientists remain concerned about the new plans treatment of other theories that they say are also fundamental concepts.
The Big Bang was moved from high school biology to middle school earth science and lessons on plate tectonics were scaled back in the proposed curriculum posted Jan. 12 on the Department of Education Web site for public review.
Some of that missing material was reinstated Friday, after state schools Superintendent Kathy Cox convened a team of science teachers to make revisions, most notably putting back the word evolution. Meanwhile, the Big Bang and plate tectonics _ also considered controversial in some circles because they conflict with religious beliefs of how God created the universe _ would be addressed in middle school.
Its impossible for a biology class to include every scientific theory known to man. Its more realistic to place the theories in different places throughout the curriculum where theyre most appropriate, Kirk Englehardt, a Department of Education spokesman, said Saturday. He added that the topics can still be discussed in high school.
But some scientists say those theories are too advanced to be fully understood by middle schoolers.
The Big Bang theory says the universe was created 10 billion to 20 billion years ago by a cosmic explosion. The theory of plate tectonics states that the Earths continents were once joined as a single landmass before being broken into large plates that are continually shifting.
James Rutherford, former director of the American Advancement of Sciences benchmark program whos a paid adviser of the state science curriculum, said they must be taught in high school.
The discussions a student would have in sixth grade would be pretty simple, he said. What you learn in sixth grade is not enough to prepare you as an adult.
The Department of Educations science curriculum coordinator, Stephen Pruitt, said the topics will be covered in a yet-to-be-developed high school science course. The class, to be called Earth systems, would incorporate the two theories in study of astronomy and geology.
We were not trying to avoid it, Pruitt said. In retrospect, maybe we should have said other things were coming.
It is possible that the class could be required, but that decision hinges on upcoming revisions of graduation requirements, Englehardt said.
If the class is optional, it may not be enough, said Pat Marsteller, director of the Emory College Center for Science Education.
Id like to see exactly what this course will be and how many students will take it, Marsteller said. This big bang is too important a topic not to be covered. It is as central as gravity.
Big bang busted in science class for high schools
By LAURA DIAMOND
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
02/13/04
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/0204/14msscience.htmlWhen scientists learned last month that the word "evolution" had been removed from Georgia's proposed science curriculum for middle and high schools, some wondered what else might have been deleted.
Some feared that the big-bang theory &emdash; the dominant scientific theory about the origins of the universe &emdash; would be absent.
Their fears were well founded.
The big bang had been eliminated from the science curriculum, and lessons on plate tectonics had been scaled back.
Concepts like the big bang, evolution and plate tectonics can be controversial in some circles because they offer scientific explanations of how the world began that don't correspond with some religious beliefs about how God created the universe, Earth and humans.
Scientists say the concepts are key to understanding physics, chemistry and other natural sciences.
Sarah Pallas, associate professor in biology at Georgia State University, said the science portion of the proposed curriculum was "definitely written to be acceptable to biblical literalists. Any phrase that would upset a creationist is gone."
Some of the missing material was reinstated to the proposed curriculum Friday when state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox accepted a recommendation from a panel of science teachers.
At Cox's direction, the teacher group had met Thursday night to rework the science proposal.
Under the revision Cox approved Friday, evolution is back. The big-bang theory and plate tectonics are addressed in middle school.
But some scientists say big bang and plate tectonics are too advanced to be taught in much depth in middle school and need to be restored to the high school curriculum.
An optional class
Cox declined to comment on the treatment of the two concepts, referring questions to Stephen Pruitt, the Department of Education's science curriculum coordinator.
Pruitt said the topics will be covered in an optional, yet-to-be-developed high school science course.
"We were not trying to avoid it," Pruitt said. "In retrospect, maybe we should have said other things were coming."
The optional course was news to the scientist that the Education Department paid to be an adviser on the development of the science curriculum. "No one mentioned this other course," said James Rutherford, who also is a former director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's benchmark program. Several scientists said Friday they were confused by the sudden announcement of a new science course.
"It would have been nice if they told us about this course sooner," said Pat Marsteller, director of the Emory College Center for Science Education, which works with middle and high school science teachers. "I'd like to see exactly what this course will be and how many students will take it," Marsteller said. "This [big bang] is too important a topic not to be covered. It is as central as gravity."
Not a 'buzzword'
The proposed new curriculum was released Jan. 12 for public comment on the core subject areas it covers: English/language arts, math, social studies and science. After revisions are made, the curriculum will go before the state Board of Education for adoption in May.
The big-bang theory holds that the universe was created 10 billion to 20 billion years ago when a cosmic explosion hurled matter in all directions. As the universe expanded, common particles were formed. These particles would become the building blocks of matter and life.
Pruitt said the theory was never viewed as a "buzzword" &emdash; the term used by Cox to explain why she initially deleted the word "evolution" and its concepts. After a storm of criticism, she reversed her decision on evolution.
The curriculum also swaps sixth and eighth grade science. Students would take Earth science during their first year in middle school and physical science, which addresses more abstract topics such as molecules, gravity and motion, in the eighth grade. Scientists say the new order is appropriate.
An amalgam of theories
The optional high school course, to be called Earth systems, would incorporate astronomy and geology and explore concepts like the big bang and plate tectonics, a scientific theory stating the Earth's crust and upper mantle is composed of large plates that move. The theory is that the Earth's surface is continually shifting and that helps explain volcanoes, earthquakes and continental drift, which holds that the Earth's continents were once joined as a single landmass.
Plate tectonics is currently covered in middle and high school Earth science. The big-bang theory is currently addressed in high school courses like biology and in eighth-grade Earth science.
The closest reference to the big bang in the curriculum proposed in January calls for sixth graders to be familiar with scientific views of the universe and to describe the formation of galaxies. But the big bang refers to the creation of the universe, not galaxies, said Martha Leake, a Valdosta State University professor who trains middle school science teachers.
The revised proposal now calls on students to describe the formation of the solar system and the universe and provides the big bang as an example.
National standards say the big bang and plate tectonics should be taught in high school.
Pruitt said the new high school science class being developed might not be a graduation requirement.
To graduate, high school students must take a life science course, a physical science course and a lab science. The state does not mandate which specific courses students take. About 90 percent of students take biology, chemistry and physics, Pruitt said.
Rutherford said high school students must study the big-bang theory and plate tectonics.
"The discussions a student would have in sixth grade would be pretty simple," he said. "What you learn in sixth grade is not enough to prepare you as an adult."
Pamela Burnley, assistant professor in geology at Georgia State, said the proposed curriculum is confusing.
"Do you teach it or not?" Burnley said.
Georgia science teachers restore 'evolution' to curriculum
Assocated Press [carried in Sioux City Journal]
2004/02/15
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2004/02/15/news/education/67798aca6fd5c46f86256e3b0013f856.txtATLANTA (AP) -- A dozen science teachers have proposed revising Georgia's biology curriculum to meet national standards while restoring the word "evolution."
Education officials hope the quick revision will end the well-publicized flap spurred when Superintendent Kathy Cox called for replacing "evolution" with "changes over time" in the curriculum. Cox reversed her position after a week of criticism from science teachers, college professors and politicians.
"We are confident that the document not only meets national standards, but will deliver the world-class curriculum that our board has requested and that our students and teachers deserve," Cox said in a statement.
A team of about a dozen science teachers met for more than three hours Thursday night to draw up the changes. Cox has assembled teams from every subject area to help revise a Georgia curriculum critics say is too broad.
The new draft, which the panel approved with little dissent, states that "molecular evidence substantiates the anatomical evidence for evolution."
The vast majority of scientists believe the theory of evolution -- which states that all living life forms evolved from earlier, more primitive life forms -- is the basis for the teaching of biology.
Some religious beliefs do not accept that view.
A new section of the proposed curriculum addresses possible controversy.
"Perhaps science courses can acknowledge the disagreement and concentrate on frankly presenting the scientific view," reads part of an overview section of the draft. "Even if students eventually choose not to believe the scientific story, they should be well informed about what the story is."
The changes were welcomed by political leaders, many of whom harshly criticized Cox's proposed removal of evolution.
"I'm delighted that the public response has been heard," said state Rep. Kathy Ashe, an Atlanta Democrat and member of the House Education Committee.
On Monday, some House Democrats proposed a bill to require a state curriculum that conforms to national standards. Ashe, the bill's sponsor, said the guidelines would prevent gaffes like the recent debate over evolution.
Republicans, who largely defended Cox's handling of the curriculum, argued that Ashe's bill is a power grab intended to give lawmakers more say over what's taught. GOP Rep. Brooks Coleman said national standards should be encouraged but not required.
After Cox's proposed change became public late last month, she said the concept would still be taught and that the word "evolution" would remain in textbooks.
But she said she hoped removing the word would take pressure off of teachers in socially conservative areas where it causes controversy among parents and school officials.
Former President Jimmy Carter and Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue were among the public leaders who spoke out against the proposal.
Department of Education officials now say wording has been restored that brings Georgia in line with most national teaching standards.
The state Board of Education will hold a special meeting next week to consider the change. If they approve, the new draft could become the official document they vote on in May.
FAIR USE NOTICEThis page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Texas Citizens for Science is making such material available in our effort to advance the understanding of scientific, political, economic, cultural, historical, and philosophic issues. Because TCS is a non-profit, educational organization, we believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without charge or profit to those who have an interest in viewing the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, please go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use," you should obtain permission from the copyright owner (the newspaper, journal, or service identified). TCS will always include the web address (URL) of every article reprinted here so that interested individuals can view the original article on its original website if still available. In addition, while minor editing of format has been conducted, no text has been edited or altered in any way.
Steven Schafersman, Texas Citizens for Science infoATtxscience.org (Help stop spam: replace AT with @ before mailing) Last updated: 2004/02/18