Science under attack in Georgia (American Taliban alert!)

[jsw_81]

Georgia considers banning evolution from science class

[RebelOne]

1. Yes, I live in this state where they want the schools to take

a step backward. It's outrageous.

[Az]

10. A step?!

Thats a bit more than one step.

[Dulcinea]

19. I do too. I'm afraid.

I have 2 daughters & can't afford private school.

I DO NOT want them to be taught creationism (or "intelligent design," same thing) in school! If parents choose to teach that drivel at home, fine, that's their business, but NOT on MY tax dollars!

That, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem with public education: every bonehead in the world with an agenda trying to push it off on the public schools.

[kysrsoze]

2. Without a doubt, one of the stupidest things I've ever seen

I can't believe people in the 21st century CHOOSE to deny wisdom and learning just so they don't have to think about inconsistencies in the Bible. It's a book of lessons and figuratives. It's not meant to be taken literally.

I really hate the reactionism I'm seeing in this country. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

[EV1Ltimm]

3. here's a screenshot for posterity's sake

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. LMAO!

[Jose Diablo]

20. I think Kathy looks better this way

LOL

[jsw_81]

21. This was taken in Atlanta this morning:

It's the annual meeting of the Georgia Republican Women's Club.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. "evolution is just a buzzword"...omfg!...stop the world i wantta get off!

[HFishbine]

11. Other "buzzwords" to be removed from cirriculum

- photosynthesis
- gravity
- fusion
- dehydration
- electricity
- reproduction

[StClone]

6. Yeah The South is not different than the North.

Texas and Kansas both tried this. Why don't they just get rid of Science (and sex ed) altogether and go back to cave dwelling, without computers, cars and commomn scense for gripes sakes.

[GreyV]

8. Texas and Kansas

Texas and Kansas ain't exactly "north" but hey. Georgia, that state is on full throttle back to 19th century ...and beyond.

[truthspeaker]

9. they tried it in Minnesota too, and we're about as north as it gets!

Unfortunately for the wingnuts, they appointed an independent panel to write the science standards. They wrote decent standards, but the Education Commissioner (a closet creationist) tried to insert some qualifiers to imply there was scientific reason to doubt the theory of evolution. Panel members caught it and she claimed it was just a "draft" that slipped out.

Now it's in the public comment phase. People I know who've gone report the presence of creationist sympathizers who they suspect are planted.

And our governor (who appointed the Ed. Commissioner) wants us to be a leader in biotech.

[kcwayne]

7. Hey, its a competitive world, and the economy is making it

even more competitive. If parents in Georgia want to move their kids to the bottom of the pile by insisting their schools become mediocre or abysmal in teaching kids how to think in the 21st century, but excel in religious instruction, that's their choice. Too bad their kids have to pay the price.

[mike_c]

12. actually, a formal definition of "evolution"...

...is pretty close to the wording they want to substitute-- "biological changes over time." Depends on the level of sophistication you're trying to achieve. The definition my students generally use is "change in population allele frequencies over time" or thereabouts.

All the hoohah about the term "evolution" is largely based an a lack of understanding of what it is. What most fundies are really upset about is "speciation," which is one possible consequence of evolution-- only one of several.

Of course, it's also obvious that in their ignorance the Georgia education folks are simply tilting after the wrong windmills, but they're tilting nonetheless. I just find it funny that they want to replace the term with it's legitimate definition.

[HereSince1628]

15. Fundies don't really appreciate micro-macro evolutionary

argumentation. And that is consistent with the conservative personality's dislike of complicated, nuanced, arguments and the dislike of things that can't be resolved.

Over the past decade I've seen less and less resistance to microevolution (change in the frequency of an allele). Orin Hatch even accepts the tenets of microevolution.

Truly, it is macroevolution...the change in the array of types of organisms...that they have the most trouble with. But, even in this arena there is progress. Change in the array of types can happen by additions _AND_ subtractions. Although 200 years ago extinction was considered impossible (under the premise God doesn't make junk that he throws away), most of the fundamentalists you might talk to today would readily accept that extinctions happen.

That's a big victory because it enables interpretation of reductions in species in the fossil record to be seen as extinction events followed by expansion of types arrayed in the fossil record which logically then are evidence of emergence of many new types.

Unfortunately creationists remain very much hung up on the age of the earth (you can find lots of Christian television criticizing assessments of geologic time) and consequently the interpretation of sedimentary deposits and speciation.

But we're making progress. If you ask anyone on the street "Is earth at least 10,000 years old?" the vast majority will say, yes. 10K years is too many for the biblical creation story. So we may not have them consciously convinced, but many of them unknowing already hold as true pro-evolutionary understandings.

In summary, "we" have them conceding on microevolution. The part of the evolutionary foundation that can be shown experimentally in a laboratory. And we have them on extinction. As you may know evidence consistent with speciation is easily shown, but models of processes of macroevolution remain murky, even to biologists. The nuances of that story aren't appropriate to tell here because providing readers the background takes too much room.

But, it's important to appreciate that evolutionary theory, particularly with respect to macroevolution, isn't perfected and creationists will attempt to equate that uncertainty with the gross inadequacies of creationism. As much as they do this successfully within the democracy, they can influence curricula.

[HereSince1628]

13. Do as fundies... educate your kids in your beliefs-- but proevolution

As a person with professional research connections to evolution and responsible for teaching evolution at the university level I know most parents may feel (and probably should feel) inadequate to this task, but...

There are dozens and dozens of web-resources, hundreds of toys/models,
and museums field trips that are readily accessible. If you want your kids to know about the natural history of the planet, make sure they get the message...through your family.

You can put "history of life" posters up around the kids rooms, stock their shelves with plastic models of dinosaurs, provide them childresn's books etc...

Hook up to cable-tv and make a point of watching documentaries on the origins of the universe, formation of the planet, geology, pre-cambrian life, dinosaurs, the pleistocene megafauna, etc. go online and by tapes or DVD's of evolution friendly programming then watch it with your kids.

Take the family on a field trip...in Milwaukee 10's of thousands of people live only a short distance from shale-beds along the Milwaukee river with brachiopod fossils "litter"ally falling out of them. And there is also a museum with evolution friendly exhibits. These are great places for kids and provide opportunities to educate them to the reality that the world is a lot older than the Bible's creation myth allows.

And speaking of creation literature, why not introduce your kids to the reality that creation legends are quite different across cultures. Why not familiarize your kids with the beliefs of the first Americans from your region?

Face the very real possibility that the creation folks aren't going to disappear anymore than people who believe in ghosts (actually they are sometimes the same people). Their beliefs will influence the political system, but if it does there are alternative educational paths.

[K-W]

14. Out of the mouths of fundies

"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."

Yah Bobby, its alot like teaching gravity.

[Bill McBlueState]

16. We seem to be winning a lot of these battles

The creationists keep coming up with different strategies every ten years or so, but science is winning out overall.

Look at what happened in Kansas. They tried to remove evolution from the curriculum, but ultimately even conservatives balked because they didn't want the state's kids to get an inferior education. When it comes down to earning potential, expect all but the most extreme ideologues to get aboard the science train!

*chug, chug, chug* science train...

We have to be on guard against this kind of stuff, but we do have the upper hand.

As a parallel, look at Copernicus and the heliocentric solar system. It's now 145 years since Darwin published his theory. 145 years after Copernicus published his theory, it was 1688 and lots of people still thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. It was still official Catholic doctrine then! But now, nearly 500 years after Copernicus, nobody believes in geocentrism. These things take time, but we win in the long run.

[HereSince1628]

17. Catholics formally admitted the earth orbited the sun in the 1990s

One of the gems I learned while reading Galileo's Daughter.
Poor Galileo, he died waiting...

[jsw_81]

18. Carter speaks out

President Carter embarrassed by Georgia move to ban evolution