| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Dear Paleonetters-- Here are more information and links to the movements in Missouri, Minnesota and Georgia regarding creationism, ID and evolution. Lisa Park > >*** Missouri/Minnesota/Georgia Evolution Controversies *** >Missouri: >In Missouri, a new bill concerning science standards in public >schools, House Bill 911, was introduced in the Missouri House of >Representatives on >December 19, 2003. It is sponsored by state Rep. Robert Wayne Cooper, M.D. >and six other Republicans. The bill, now under consideration by the >House Education Committee, states that both "biological evolution" >and "biological intelligent design" would be given equal >consideration in the Missouri public elementary and secondary >schools. > >In the bill, "biological evolution" is defined as "a theory of the >origin of life and it's ascent by naturalistic means." The term >"biological intelligent design" is defined as "a hypothesis that the >complex form and function.of all species on earth are the result of >intelligence." The bill would require public schools to spend an >equal amount of time discussing both concepts and that course >textbooks contain approximately equal number of pages teaching each >viewpoint. The textbooks would start to be implemented in 2006 and >be mandatory by 2016. According to the bill, a committee would be >appointed containing at least five people who support "biological >intelligent design" and would write supplemental curricula for the >interim until the textbooks are implemented. > >To read the bill in its entirety, go to >http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/bills/hb911.htm > >Minnesota: >The Minnesota Senate Education Committee held an open hearing on >January 23rd about new state science and social studies standards. >The new standards include the teaching of scientific evolution, but >there was some criticism about the lack of alternatives to >scientific evolution in the curriculum. A chapter in the high school >curriculum discusses how new evidence can challenge previously held >theories, such as the big-bang or plate tectonics. However, some >members of the community do not believe that this teaches the >controversy over evolution specifically enough and they would prefer >that the disagreement be explicitly stated in the evolution >curriculum. > >In addition, a minority report has been co-written by a Minnetonka >school board member to change the standards to reflect the >controversy over evolution. The writers of the report say they do >not want to teach religion in the classroom, just "the strengths and >weaknesses of the theory of evolution". The Minnesota State >Legislature convened on February 2nd and lawmakers are expected to >act on the new standards this spring. > >Georgia: >The Georgia Department of Education released its new curriculum on >January 12th to a thunder of controversy. The new middle and high >school science standards proposed by Georgia Schools Superintendent >Kathy Cox strike references to the word evolution and replace them >with the term "biological changes over time." The curriculum >revisions began over a year ago in an attempt to strengthen the >performance of students by requiring greater depth of essential >topics. Although it's not explicitly mentioned in the curriculum, >Cox said that the new standards could include the teaching of >"intelligent design" as another legitimate theory. > >In the past few days, over 2400 people have signed an online >petition to encourage the Georgia Department of Education to adapt >the Project 2061 benchmarks for science education that were >developed by the American Association for the Advancement of >Science. To view (or sign) the petition, go to: >http://www.petitiononline.com/gasci04. > >To learn more about the proposed standards: >http://www.glc.k12.ga.us/spotlight/gps2.htm > >The Georgia Department of Education will collect feedback for three months. >If you wish to comment on the proposed standards, see >http://edtech.doe.k12.ga.us/QCC/survey.htm > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Lisa E. Park Associate Professor Department of Geology University of Akron Akron, OH 44325-4101 (ph) 330-972-7633 (fax) 330-972-7611 (e-mail) lepark@uakron.edu <mailto:lepark@uakron.edu> "Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret." Anon. -----Original Message----- From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk]On Behalf Of Lisa Park Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:27 AM To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk Subject: paleonet Ohio creationists Dear Paleonetters-- Just as we thought that we had defeated the Intelligent Design people in 2002-2003, they are back, or may have never left us, trying to achieve their agenda in a more stealthful way. To date, movements are afoot in Michigan, Missouri and as we have read, Georgia, to incorporate creationism in the classroom. I am not sure if these efforts are somehow coordinated, but this problem is appearing in many states, usually in the legislature or school board. I am not sure what this means in the long term, but surely this cannot be good for science education in the US. Lisa Park +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Columbus Dispatch Creationists seeking subtle entrance to science classes Friday, February 06, 2004 STEVE RISSING Creationists again are trying to push their views into Ohio's publicschool science classrooms - this time, through the back door. A number of Ohio science teachers, myself included, were asked recently by the Ohio Department of Education to review lessons it is developing to assist teachers and their students to prepare for the Ohio Graduation Test. That test and the model lessons for review are based on the Ohio science content standards that were passed by the State Board of Education 13 months ago. Some board members advocated inclusion of intelligent-design creationism in those standards, a move eventually rejected by the board. But such creationism nonetheless is alive in the model lessons. Attempts to again slip such nonscientific ideas into the science curriculum and the graduation test itself should raise concerns about the science education of our children. Of the lessons I reviewed, one in particular is associated with a standard forged in 2002 as a supposed compromise requiring students to describe how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. The state board even included reassurance that this indicator did "not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design." But, somehow that hasn't stopped some lesson writers from trying to teach our children nonscientific, nontestable hypotheses in science classes. Intelligent-design creationism was conjured as early as 1691 by the Rev. John Ray. In its current manifestation, adherents argue that some traits of organisms are so complex that they occur through the intercession of some nonphysical, mindful being, such as God or some other supernatural entity. One of the lessons requires "critical analysis discussion" of evolution by 10 th-grade students. Such a debate format implies incorrectly that only two sides exist in research analyzing such questions in science. A debate format suggests incorrectly that alternate arguments are of equal weight and that public-school teachers should mentor students by providing them unscientific "alternatives" to good science. Further, students are to find data challenging evolution. That's a guaranteed failure for a 10 thgrader, given that no such data or experimental results exist in the scientific literature, though such red herrings abound in creationist information. The lesson includes grading rubrics, including points assigned for courtesy and group participation during debates. But no points are assigned for authenticity of content. If extended to all sciences and the graduation test, then a hollow but wellpresented Earth-centered solar-system argument might pass, while a well-reasoned but poorly presented sun-centered one might fail. Familiarity with current science content should count for something in a science grade. The lesson comes with a prepared script for students to follow in their debate regarding evolution. A student, for example, is to recite that in classic studies of the British peppered moth, "no new species emerged." Cool. But no one ever suggested they did. Students are to read aloud under the guidance of their teacher that "scientists have not observed (bacterial) cells changing into organelles, such as mitochondria or chloroplasts." Of course no scientist has observed it. The science standards themselves indicate such cellular changes occurred about a billion years ago. Scientists never have observed SARS viruses entering human cells, either, but we accept those as part of an infectious-disease theory supported by other strong inference. Given that the lesson attacks or ignores centuries of scientific endeavors and results, it is surprisingly silent about offering alternative hypotheses, especially any that are testable or have predictive power, the hallmarks of good science. The lesson never mentions intelligent-design creationism explicitly; rather, it guides teachers and students to references and Web sites where they can discover such creationism on their own. The aspects of evolution chosen for challenge come from one of those references, an intelligent-design creationism book written by a disciple of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. In the freshman biology course I teach at Ohio State University, I link my topics to the board's science standards. Recently, I spent two class sessions on the standard that reads: "Recognize that bias affects outcomes. People tend to ignore evidence that challenges their beliefs but accept evidence that supports their beliefs. Scientists attempt to avoid bias in their work." If we require our high-school students to recognize the blinding effects of bias in order to pass the graduation test, then we should expect the same from those preparing and adopting the curricula designed for students to pass that exam. The outcome affected by bias in lessons pending before the State Board of Education is the scientific literacy of our children and Ohio's work force. Steve Rissing is a biology professor at Ohio State University. steverissing@hotmail.com --Lynn E. Elfner, CEO The Ohio Academy of Science, 1500 W Third Ave Ste 228 Columbus OH 43212, Phone 614-488-2228 Outside 614 -- Toll Free -- 1-800-OHIOSCI Fax 614-488-7629 Web http://www.ohiosci.org Email oas@iwaynet.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Lisa E. Park Associate Professor Department of Geology University of Akron Akron, OH 44325-4101 (ph) 330-972-7633 (fax) 330-972-7611 (e-mail) lepark@uakron.edu <mailto:lepark@uakron.edu> "Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret." Anon.
Partial index: