GA schools to remove term "evolution" from curriculum <<Update2: Gov. says leave the word, but teach creationism too >>

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: Fausto
YamXS: Cox is a complete idiot. She really only got elected as she has the same name as our secretary of state (yes, voters are that stupid). Since being elected, she's basically done nothing aside from creating these media sh*tstorms that get in the way of any real progress with regard to our pathetic public education.

Needless to say, my kids are going to private school regardless of the cost.

Maybe, by the time your kid starts school, GA will have some better folks running the show.

Or I won't live in GA any more. 😉

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: Fausto
YamXS: Cox is a complete idiot. She really only got elected as she has the same name as our secretary of state (yes, voters are that stupid). Since being elected, she's basically done nothing aside from creating these media sh*tstorms that get in the way of any real progress with regard to our pathetic public education.

Needless to say, my kids are going to private school regardless of the cost.

Maybe, by the time your kid starts school, GA will have some better folks running the show.

Or I won't live in GA any more. 😉

perhaps, move on up to Wisconsin, and you can have some homebrew!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Frdm51472
Ok, for the slow learners I will say it again, this has no basis in religion, I have never even read the bible.......I don't believe in some guy in the clouds snapping his fingers and saying boom there is life.....my point is that "creationsim" can be defined as life starting because of an outside influence, I just don't know what that influence is. I do however know that it all had to start somewhere.....

Well, for one, your use of the term "creationism" implies, in many peoples minds - including my own, creation "science". That all is explained in the Bible.

Second, your logic suffers from the fallacy of since science cannot exactly explain how the first amino acids were formed and the first living cell originated, that it must have come from some outside source (ie. God). There is much science has yet to discover and teach us and to assume anything about a higher power creating anything is preposterous.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Frdm51472

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Frdm51472

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Frdm51472
according to you.......at some point creationism had to happen to some extent. I don't think creationism can be disproven any more than our current theories of evolution can be proven.

creationism can't be disproven??? WTF? It doesn't HAVE to be disproven! It's completely made up and has NO BASIS and absolutely NO EVIDENCE of ANY kind!

Jeezus, it's amazing how brainwashed people can get, ya know?

So under your theory, evolution is the entire basis for what we have for lifeforms on this planet right now?

Where did the first lifeforms come from, did they "evolve" from non living matter?

First Name: C. M.

Last Name: Thompson

Username: Frdm51472

City: Waycross

Province/State: Georgia


Try to be nice guys....we're dealing with a GA public schools victim here. He just doesn't know any better.

Nice assumption, I am actually a NY Catholic school victim, but nearly the same thing I guess

I am sorry I dont accept anyone in ATOT as an expert on the history of all living things, and my views are as far from religious as they possibly could be. But common sense tells me that both "creationism" in some form and evolution had to play into life as we know it today. There HAS to be a beginning to start the evolution thing rolling. Dead matter cannot evolve into anything.....so where did the first living cells come from?

Components of life, amino acids, even the beginning of cells, have been created by running electrical current through a gaseous soup of substances that existed on the newly formed earth. It's an absurd stretch to say "It had to start somewhere, therefore these people who wrote this ancient religious text were right. God created Adam and made Eve out of his rib". Yeah, I'm sure Zeus throws down lightning bolts, and Atlas supports the sky too.

You want proof of evolution? Mosquitos become resistant to poison, bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics. If that isn't as clear as day to you, there is something wrong with your thinking capacity.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Frdm51472

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: Frdm51472

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Frdm51472
according to you.......at some point creationism had to happen to some extent. I don't think creationism can be disproven any more than our current theories of evolution can be proven.

creationism can't be disproven??? WTF? It doesn't HAVE to be disproven! It's completely made up and has NO BASIS and absolutely NO EVIDENCE of ANY kind!

Jeezus, it's amazing how brainwashed people can get, ya know?

So under your theory, evolution is the entire basis for what we have for lifeforms on this planet right now?

Where did the first lifeforms come from, did they "evolve" from non living matter?

First Name: C. M.

Last Name: Thompson

Username: Frdm51472

City: Waycross

Province/State: Georgia


Try to be nice guys....we're dealing with a GA public schools victim here. He just doesn't know any better.

Nice assumption, I am actually a NY Catholic school victim, but nearly the same thing I guess

I am sorry I dont accept anyone in ATOT as an expert on the history of all living things, and my views are as far from religious as they possibly could be. But common sense tells me that both "creationism" in some form and evolution had to play into life as we know it today. There HAS to be a beginning to start the evolution thing rolling. Dead matter cannot evolve into anything.....so where did the first living cells come from?

Components of life, amino acids, even the beginning of cells, have been created by running electrical current through a gaseous soup of substances that existed on the newly formed earth.

You want proof of evolution? Mosquitos become resistant to poison, bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics. If that isn't as clear as day to you, there is something wrong with your thinking capacity.

YamahaXS quoted a bit about that experiment above. Here's a more in-depth interview with the guy who actually executed it, Stanley Miller

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Frdm51472
Ok, for the slow learners I will say it again, this has no basis in religion, I have never even read the bible.......I don't believe in some guy in the clouds snapping his fingers and saying boom there is life.....my point is that "creationsim" can be defined as life starting because of an outside influence, I just don't know what that influence is. I do however know that it all had to start somewhere.....

Well, for one, your use of the term "creationism" implies, in many peoples minds - including my own, creation "science". That all is explained in the Bible.

Second, your logic suffers from the fallacy of since science cannot exactly explain how the first amino acids were formed and the first living cell originated, that it must have come from some outside source (ie. God). There is much science has yet to discover and teach us and to assume anything about a higher power creating anything is preposterous.

However, its worth noting that Frdm51472 and others HAVE shown the ability to think of evolution and creationism as something that can co-exist. This is probably the norm, and is perfectly reasonable from the point of view of someone that is interested in reconciling what they hear from church and what they hear from school. Kudos to them for being reasonable!

You point, Conjur, though is well taken too. Creationism doesn NOT belong in the science classroom. It is not a scientific theory and there is no real evidence to support it. I also think it is a dis-service to the bible for trying to applying scientific rigor to its contents. The bible is about religion and the human condition, not a user's manual for understanding the mechanics of the universe.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Frdm51472
Ok, for the slow learners I will say it again, this has no basis in religion, I have never even read the bible.......I don't believe in some guy in the clouds snapping his fingers and saying boom there is life.....my point is that "creationsim" can be defined as life starting because of an outside influence, I just don't know what that influence is. I do however know that it all had to start somewhere.....

Well, for one, your use of the term "creationism" implies, in many peoples minds - including my own, creation "science". That all is explained in the Bible.

Second, your logic suffers from the fallacy of since science cannot exactly explain how the first amino acids were formed and the first living cell originated, that it must have come from some outside source (ie. God). There is much science has yet to discover and teach us and to assume anything about a higher power creating anything is preposterous.

However, its worth noting that Frdm51472 and others HAVE shown the ability to think of evolution and creationism as something that can co-exist. This is probably the norm, and is perfectly reasonable from the point of view of someone that is interested in reconciling what they hear from church and what they hear from school. Kudos to them for being reasonable!

You point, Conjur, though is well taken too. Creationism doesn NOT belong in the science classroom. It is not a scientific theory and there is no real evidence to support it. I also think it is a dis-service to the bible for trying to applying scientific rigor to its contents. The bible is about religion and the human condition, not a user's manual for understanding the mechanics of the universe.

We have a winner! 😀

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS


However, its worth noting that Frdm51472 and others HAVE shown the ability to think of evolution and creationism as something that can co-exist. This is probably the norm, and is perfectly reasonable from the point of view of someone that is interested in reconciling what they hear from church and what they hear from school. Kudos to them for being reasonable!

You point, Conjur, though is well taken too. Creationism doesn NOT belong in the science classroom. It is not a scientific theory and there is no real evidence to support it. I also think it is a dis-service to the bible for trying to applying scientific rigor to its contents. The bible is about religion and the human condition, not a user's manual for understanding the mechanics of the universe.

Agreed.

🙂

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

can we drink some beer now?
😀:beer:😀:beer::beer:😀:beer:

 

[conjur]

By all means!

:beer:😀:beer:

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
can we drink some beer now?
😀:beer:😀:beer::beer:😀:beer:

I'll have a Primordial Pale Ale please. :beer:😀:beer:

 

[Fausto]

Whoohoo. We've made it to the Yahoo front page!

I can just hear the rest of the country shaking their collective heads and saying "Georgia.....that's so freaking typical."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fausto
Whoohoo. We've made it to the Yahoo front page!

I can just hear the rest of the country shaking their collective heads and saying "Georgia.....that's so freaking typical."

Pic

Definitely looks like at least a 2' stick is jammed up her arse.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Fausto
Whoohoo. We've made it to the Yahoo front page!

I can just hear the rest of the country shaking their collective heads and saying "Georgia.....that's so freaking typical."

Pic

Definitely looks like at least a 2' stick is jammed up her arse.

You should hear her give a speech.

 

[Fausto]

Booyah! New York Times as well.

TLANTA, Jan. 29 ? 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."

Fscking stupid biotch. :|

 

[StageLeft]

Saw this on CNN this morning. Went to georgia's site and emailed her. I asked her if religion would soon be referred to as "organized worshipping of deitie", and that I was not the only one to roll my eyes and chuckle at it. My email was by no means offensive, but this is insulting to common sense. Plus, that woman is freaking ugly.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: MogulMonster
Here's what I think is incredible ironic about the situation.

The conservatives want to remove the work "Evolution" from the curriculumn and replace it with Biological changes. Thise really messes them up, because they aren't "protecting" anyone from the Evolution. On the contrary, they are allowing it to be freely taught. How so? Think about the stigma that the word Evolution has. Most children of religious families are taught very early that Evolution is absolutely wrong. Once the word Evolution comes up, they either get defensive or just tune out. Now, if you teach the same thing using the phrase, biological changes, then that same child will most likely take it in and learn from it.

So, you have my theory on why the governor's have just put into play a knee-jerk proposal, which they will in turn regret in the future.

So true. What is even more ironic is that "Evolution" was coined by religious people to imply that life get better with time and people are more important then aps becuase we evolved from apes.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Fausto
Whoohoo. We've made it to the Yahoo front page!

I can just hear the rest of the country shaking their collective heads and saying "Georgia.....that's so freaking typical."

Pic

Definitely looks like at least a 2' stick is jammed up her arse.

You should hear her give a speech.

heh...those message boards at Yahoo make this place look like a....well.....church picnic!

😀 😀

 

[Fausto]

Holy sh*t!! Even Bobby Franklin thinks she's an idiot. :Q

"If you're teaching the concept without the word, what's the point?" said Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican. "It's stupid. It's like teaching gravity without using the word gravity."

Of course, he'd probably just do away with it altogether, it's still amazing that an arch-reactionary freak like him would speak out against this proposal.

For the record, this is the wacko that thought up GA House Bill 1:

HB 1 calls for women seeking an abortion to first obtain a "death warrant" from a Superior Court judge.

Once the woman has petitioned the court, her fetus is assigned legal representation and the future of the pregnancy is determined by a jury trial (or a bench trial, presumably if the fetus prefers). Of course, HB 1 also allows the decision to be appealed, so even a condemned fetus can hope to escape amniotic Death Row. Finally, abortion providers who perform an "execution" -- as the bill calls it -- without a signed death warrant would face five years in prison.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS

Originally posted by: Fausto
YamXS: Cox is a complete idiot. She really only got elected as she has the same name as our secretary of state (yes, voters are that stupid). Since being elected, she's basically done nothing aside from creating these media sh*tstorms that get in the way of any real progress with regard to our pathetic public education.

Needless to say, my kids are going to private school regardless of the cost.

Maybe, by the time your kid starts school, GA will have some better folks running the show.

I tried. I'm a New Yorker that was running the Computers and Teaching Computer classes for the State schools anyway. They kicked me out saying that Distributed Computing is the worst case of Hacking and cost the State the most ever and tried to put me away for 120 years and $815,000 in fines. They said that "You dam Yankee should go back to New York with your attitude". Exact words of the Dean to me in his Office.

 

[Fausto]

Current poll results from the AJC.com story:

Which term do you prefer?

Evolution: 86.53%

Biological changes over time: 13.47%

 

[conjur]

Evolution 86.58% 9221
Biological changes over time 13.42% 1429



1429 people need to be laid in front of a fleet of steamrollers.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution 86.58% 9221
Biological changes over time 13.42% 1429



1429 people need to be laid in front of a fleet of steamrollers.

...or just deported to Alabama.

(sorry Mill and Skoorb 😛 )

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution 86.58% 9221
Biological changes over time 13.42% 1429



1429 people need to be laid in front of a fleet of steamrollers.

...or just deported to Alabama.

(sorry Mill and Skoorb 😛 )

Nah...they'll just regroup and recruit and come back in bigger numbers.

As Barney Fife said:

Nip it! Nip it in the bud!

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Here is an example of the NEWLY PROPOSED CURRICULUM


the actual curriculum is HERE

I copied from there the standards for biology that relate to evolution.

SB7. Students will be 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.
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 science students should use:
fossil record, geologic record, molecular evidence, homologous, vestigial
structures, mutation, recombination, hierarchy, theory, natural selection,
adaptation, evidence, inference, speciation, biodiversity.

Tasks:
Cells
A) Summarize through an essay or presentation matter-energy relationships in living organisms
by comparing aerobic and anaerobic respiration. (SB6a)
B) Describe or illustrate, the structure and functional relationships of cell organelles. (SB1ab)
C) Incorporate a graph into a Powerpoint presentation to illustrate how homeostasis is
maintained at the cellular level. (SB1b)
D) In a paired group setting, compare and contrast the structure and function of prokaryotic and
eukaryotic cells. (SB1c)
E) Physically demonstrate different methods of the transport of materials into and out of cells.
(SB1d)
F) Design models to demonstrate an understanding of the role of enzymes in biological systems.
(SB1e)

Heredity & Development of Life Over Time
A) Design and construct a model of the DNA molecule showing its structure and demonstrating
the process of reproducing itself. (SB2ab)
B) Contrast the contribution of mitosis and meiosis to variation in species. (SB2d)
C) Create a PowerPoint presentation describing key scientists and their discoveries that have
shaped current theories of heredity, biodiversity, and biological changes over time.
D) Demonstrate the laws of probability to predict patterns of inheritance (recessive and
dominant traits) through the use of selected organisms. (SB2e)
E) Create a presentation that explains how crossing over, changes in DNA (genetic mutations)
and random combinations of gametes contribute the development of new traits and natural
selection. (SB2g)
F) Prepare a presentation on how DNA technology can be utilized in various fields. (SB2h)
G) Create a poster, connecting suitable adaptive responses of organisms to environmental
pressures. (SB2g)

Plants & Animals
A) Classify organisms according to the three domain or six Kingdom taxonomic systems.
(SB4a)
B) Classify organisms using a dichotomous key to a minimum of the family level. (SB4a)
C) Research and explain how internal and external factors that influence the growth and
development of a selected organism. (SB4b)
D) In a class presentation, give examples of how homeostatic mechanisms allow organisms to
adjust to changes in their environment. (SB4d, SB5ef)
E) In a group presentation, compare the systems of various animals. (SB3b)
DRAFT

Also, HERE is the defense of their decision to not use the term evolution. The bolding is mine.

Superintendent Cox Addresses Concerns About Proposed Science Curriculum

Atlanta 1/28/04 - At a new conference that took place at 3:00 PM on Thursday, January 29th, Georgia?s State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox addressed the misconceptions about the draft of our state?s 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

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.

The widely accepted theories for biology are?????
FYI:
Lamarke- posited that animals acquire traits through practice (e.g., giraffes necks were long b/c they were continuously stretching to reach leaves)
Malthus - wrote about how he believed that population growth would doom mankind to a ceaseless struggle for existence. Out of that unforgiving battle, some would survive and many would not, as famine, disease, and war put a ceiling on the growth in population. Darwin read Malthus's work prior to cystalizing his theory of evolution
Wallace - a contempary of Darwin, and independently came to the concept of natural selection/evolution.
Buffon - a contempary and critic of the idea of natural selection. Tried to reconcile creationism with Darwin's evidence.

In otherwords, she wants to teach creationism in the science classroom.