Georgia v Evolution: Political Admin Proposes Striking Word

[Phobos]

Here they go again.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/index.html

The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time."

Maybe we should change "superintendent" to "political administrator who proposes silly things"

 

[Monique]

I never realized that e*******n is a dirty word.. maybe Greg should consider including it in the forum filter silly people..

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by Monique
I never realized that e*******n is a dirty word.. maybe Greg should consider including it in the forum filter silly people..

That is b/c you were not raised in the bible belt. And yes, it is a dirty word.

Nautica

 

[adrenaline]

It's so stupid, even the conservative creationists know it's stupid.

Social conservatives who prefer religious creation to be taught instead of evolution criticized the proposal as well.

"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."

Let's call gravity "the weak force between matter" if they like.

 

[FZ+]

I read someone wanting to replace the word science with "the way things are."

Actually, the proposal isn't that bad. It would be useful against creationists who try to obscure the issue by setting up strawmans. Evolution is just biological changes over time.

 

[nautica]

About the controversy as stated in "Evolutionary Analysis" by Scott Freeman

"During a discussion about whether material on evolution should be included in high school textbooks, a member of the Alabama State School Board named David Byers said, "It's foolish and naive to believe that what children are taught about who they are, how they got here, doesn't have anything to do with what they conclude about why they are here and what their obligations are, if, in fact, they have any obligations, and how they should live." (National Public Radio 1995). This statement suggests that, for some creationist, the controversy is not about the valadity of the scientific evidence or its compatiblity with religion. Instead, the concern is about what evolution means for human morality and behavior."

Nautica

 

[Another God]

Great point. So the real problem is that Evolution strikes a glaring hole through their current 'ethical curriculum'. There is now an issue with saying "you evolved, so you have to do what god said" because it doesn't really follow.

Haha, they have to go out and actually figure out what ethics is for the first time...

Why is ethics so hard for people to grasp? it really isn;t such a difficult concept when u allow youself to look past all of the social indoctrination.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

When I was in school I learned about ethics and morals in religion class and classes that could be translated to something like 'society' class and other crap.

Maybe they could stick to biology in their biology class and try to get the other message through in other classes.

or is that too simple?

 

[adrenaline]

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
When I was in school I learned about ethics and morals in religion class and classes that could be translated to something like 'society' class and other crap.

Maybe they could stick to biology in their biology class and try to get the other message through in other classes.

or is that too simple?

great idea!

 

[Phobos]

FWIW, this issue in Georgia goes further. Some more quotes from Superintendent Cox...

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. ..."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."

The Journal-Constitution reported that Superintendent Cox supported the teaching of creationism in Cobb County, Ga., public schools. Asked about the issue in 2002, Cox said “it was a good thing for parents and the community to stand up and say we want out children exposed to this [creationism] idea as well.”

FWIW, Sup. Cox used to be a social studies teacher.

There has been a big public debate in Georgia since this announcement. It doesn't seem to be flying too well with anyone in the school system (particularly, college). Even x-president Jimmy Carter is slamming it...

"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," Carter said in a written statement.

...

Carter said dropping the word would leave Georgia's high school graduates "with a serious handicap as they enter college or private life where freedom of speech will be permitted."
Carter also predicted ridicule for the state, along with discredit on Georgia's university system.

"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," Carter said. "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."

 

[Phobos]

The Governor at first said he would stay out of it. Now he's elaborating. Ug, once again with the "just a theory" idea (at least he's against changing the word evolution)...

Gov. Sonny Perdue said... “If you’re going to teach evolution, you ought to call it evolution...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 academic theory.”... 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 a proven fact, and then go beyond that and ridicule students who would believe anything other than the theory of evolution

Smacks of the Catholic's Church historic position toward Galileo, no? (i.e., it's useful in an academic sense to think about the solar system as if the planets went around the sun, so long as you don't say that is actually the case)

Of course we all know that there are the facts of evolution and then there is a theory that explains how it happens and what it's history has been.

Turns out that this is not just a debate about one word...

from http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/31evolution.html
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.

Another scary tidbit...

Currently five states — Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma — have no references to evolution in their state school curriculums, according to the National Center for Science Education.

 

[Monique]

Together with banning religious symbols from public schools.. what is this world coming to?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Phobos
Ug, once again with the "just a theory" idea

Thats a big pet peve of mine too. Perhaps we need to get rid of the word "theory" and just say "idea well supported by evidence which makes accurate, testable, and repeatable predictions."

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats a big pet peve of mine too. Perhaps we need to get rid of the word "theory" and just say "idea well supported by evidence which makes accurate, testable, and repeatable predictions."

Yep. What really bothers me is that the general public calls every idea a theory and never differentiate between the 2. But, all of the sudden every becomes an expert on the term when speaking of evolution.

Nautica

 

[Vosh]

The number of homeschoolers/unschoolers keeps rising. This means that there are more and more ppl. ever year who just laugh watching these monkeys in the schooling realm scratching their monkey head like Homer Simpson, "wadda we do, wadda we do?" and are grateful they're outside of it.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by Monique
Together with banning religious symbols from public schools.. what is this world coming to?

I don't guess I understand what you are saying. Are you being sarcastic or do you believe that religous symbols should be allowed at schools? Do you not believe in separation of Church and state or are you only referring to an indivuals rights to wear religous symbols. Or maybe I am just to dumb to understand your statement.

Nautica

 

[Monique]

I am talking about little silly rules that are being made up.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Monique, is this in the European context? Like the head scarves in France?

In the US, the problem is a little different. France is trying to enforce no visible signs of religion on the students to promote its secular ideal. In the US he battle is more likely to be between secular students (and their parents) and a religious local school board. US education is the way it is because the people have been sold the proposition that control of the school by small time local polititians is good, while control by big time national politicins is bad.

 

[nautica]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Monique, is this in the European context? Like the head scarves in France?

In the US, the problem is a little different. France is trying to enforce no visible signs of religion on the students to promote its secular ideal. In the US he battle is more likely to be between secular students (and their parents) and a religious local school board. US education is the way it is because the people have been sold the proposition that control of the school by small time local polititians is good, while control by big time national politicins is bad.

That was why I was confused about her statement. I guess I need to remember, this is on the "World Wide" Web.

Nautica

 

[Monique]

:) the comment was in any context where unnecessary measures are taken. For instance the head scarfs and crosses in France (other countries are considering it too), why don't we reintroduce school uniforms at the same time? That would be a better idea than only disallowing certain groups to express themselves. But that's another discussion :P

About the science lingo, I think the following is a fun demonstration how science jargon can go wrong in real life :P

From Aliquotes Volume V Number xiii August/97 (rogerb@microsoft.com)
WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE

The Sciences are very jargon oriented and this can cause problems when over-excited scientists carry on conversations in the real world... you know, the one without the pipettes and shakers and chemical bottles. The following are three true stories.

Politically Corrects

Two young scientists, a student and a post-doc, had left the lab after another succesfull day. As they rode the local transit on their way home, they began a rather animated discussion about the day's results and more specifically about the success that one had with her gel retardation or mobility shift assays. On and on they went about the "retards" doing this and the "retards" doing that when a woman across the aisle from them finally turned in disgust and said: "The word is mentally handicapped and it's not very nice to call them retards." The two scientist were shocked by this sudden outburst and the woman got off of the train before the two could correct her on the subject to which they were referring.

The Cutting Edge

In a protein lab, it is common for people to set up their proteins as a fusion with other domains which are easily purified through their affinity to ligands attached to resin beads. One of the most common of these domains is the glutathione S-transferase protein or GST. Typically, there is a small linker region between the protein of interest and the fusion parner and this amino acid sequence contains recognition sequences for proteases. After months in the lab, having limited success with her proteolysis reactions, a young female grad student finally had her patience and perseverence pay off when she destained yet another gel and saw that her protein had indeed been cut by the protease. In her joy, the young woman ran out into the hallway, proclaiming proudly to all: "I've got cleavage. I've got cleavage. Come over here. Look at my cleavage."

A Graphic Plot

In another lab, on another day, yet another young, female graduate student was working on a poster for presentation at an upcoming meeting. She had been using fluorescence to study the binding of a protein to its ligand and had spent quite a bit of time getting just the right distribution of data points for her graph. After several days in front of the fluorimeter and hours in front of the computer, plotting her data, she sat back in satisfaction at her accomplishments. Seeing one of the guys from her lab passing in the hallway, she called out to him in a loud voice, "Hey come look at my figure. Are these outstanding curves or what?" They were nice curves and she had a really nice figure.

True or not, they certainly could be :P

 

[Hurkyl]

None compares to the time I was in Orchestra class, and a girl was adjusting the tension in her violin, and did it too tightly, causing her to exclaim to the class "Oh no, my G string broke!"

 

[Nereid]

G? g? the double entendre in 'anti-Hermitian'?

rejoice in the flexibility of language!

To the point that changing the referants of 'theory' would make a difference: no. The religious bigots can follow you just as quickly. The only answer is to undertake the depressingly difficult task of raising the general populace's understanding of what constitutes the scientific method. If you ever feel you will never succeed, get out of science, or emigrate to Singapore, Taiwan, Australia, the Netherlands, ... where religion has less influence over public policy.

[Edit: fixed typos]

 

[Phobos]

Cobb County school board back in action!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html

A warning sticker in suburban Atlanta science textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact" was challenged in court Monday as an unlawful promotion of religion.
...
The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

 

[iansmith]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

The first problem is that statement describe what science is trying to do, keep an open and approach problem in a critical manner. However, this is comming from a group that do no keep an open mind and do not critically consider many scientific statement.

The second problem is that a evolution is a theory and not a fact. However, this group is using, or playing with, a layman misconception of the terms instead of the scientific definition.

Just to refresh people memory

Scientific fact

an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=scientific+fact

Layman definition of fact

a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=fact

Scientific theory

an explanation based on observation and reasonning

Layman definition of theory which is more or less equivalent to hypothesis in science

an explanation based on thought or speculation; an opinion or idea about something

This is actually from my dictionnary