'Evolution' back in teaching plan | Atlanta Journal-Constitution

[Ediacara]

'Evolution' back in teaching plan

By MARY MacDONALD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/06/04

State 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."

More at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

[Fenris]

1. The whole story is assinine

Can we PLEASE let scientists decide what children should be tought about science?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. that is precisely the point

reactionaries in this country are having a problem with the whole concept of science...

[Bandit]

3. Don't you know science is only what Rush and Co. tell you it is?

:crazy: Rush once said it was impossible for the waters to rise if the polar caps melted because if an ice cube melts in your glass the glass doesn't overflow. I kid you not. He actually said that. So he definitely knows about science.

[Voice_of_Europe]

5. Mathematical proof that we should melt the polar icecaps!!

hhmmm.. you sure it doesn't rise?...

Well... 1/10th of the ice cube is over the water surface...
This 1/10th then flows down into the glass causing the level to rise...

Of course you could argue that ice takes up more space than water because of its crystalline structur and therefor causing the level to fall...
anybody got numbers here? maybe the the molten 9/10th of underwater take up so much less volume that it not only compensates the 1/10th over-the-water ice, but actually exceeds it??!

who knows..
maybe somebody should tell Rush that we should start melting the polar ice caps as soon as possible to gain many more beautiful sand beaches around the globe!!

/Sarcasm (in case you couldn't tell...)

[Bandit]

7. It's called displacement

Ice displaces water until it melts and becomes water but still occupies the same space, however ice on top of land as in the Artic and Antartic when it melts it runs into the sea and increases displacement. Bottom line Rush is an idiot.

[Voice_of_Europe]

10. CORRECT!!

Congratulations! You pass!

Which by the way also tells us why ice actually swims! Because Ice-H20 has the same mass as the Water-H20 but uses up more volume which means less H20-atoms per volume which means it's lighter.
And the volume increase of freezing water logically equals exactly the approximately 1/10th of the ice cube floating above water level...


Which tells us further:
Rush's Physics or ok...
But he's a Geographics idiot who thinks the North Pole is made of ice!

[Tims]

12. The art of deception

It is true that the melting of sea ice will not cause the oceans to rise, so Rush is technically correct in his statement. Unfortunately the greatest mass of polar ice is on the continent of Antarctica and on the ice sheets of Greenland. As this melts, the oceans will rise. Rush has this art down pat, what he says may be true but it has no bearing on reality and is only used to confuse and distract. Rush's talent is not so much his finely crafted lies, but his misrepresentation of the truth and his selective omissions of vital information.

[Ediacara]

14. you and I are on the same wavelength

I posted almost the same response :-)

[Ediacara]

13. Well ok, we all know Rush is a boob

But to answer this "challenge"... Most polar ice is actually in Antarctica. He's SORT OF correct in saying that sea ice melting wouldn't significantly change the depth of the oceans, but he is completely forgetting about the continental ice stuck on the Antarctic continent. When that melts, it will all run downhill (ie into the oceans) and cause significant changes in water depth.

[Voice_of_Europe]

15. love you all guys!

^_^
Wasn't trying to challenge you... just to bring you closer to the (low) level of thinking of some people...

[myrna minx]

4. What would be next? CSI: Christian Scene Detectives?

Georgia would employ "faith based" forensics? "We prayed about this blood sample and found it to match our suspect." Thank goodness this has been haulted.

[Voice_of_Europe]

6. Faith based forensics

Reminds me of many witch trials...

"The subject did not float at the surface with 100 pounds of stone bound to her ankles... The scientific proof that she is not a witch!... of course you can only be absolutly certain after about 1 hour!"

(It could actually be funny if it hadn't REALLY happened like this!)

[myrna minx]

16. LOL, or they could employ a team of "witch smellers"

ala the Black Adder. Welcome to DU, Voice of Europe. :hi:

[David Zephyr]

8. Breaking News: The World Is Still Not Flat...Anymore.

What a joke.

[einniv]

11. LOL

Perfect!

[einniv]

9. So in other words.

She changed back the least important piece of this.
Evolution is biological change over time but ...

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."

This is obviously very important to understanding the theory of evolution or at least the "Common Descent" portion of it. People are already underinformed about what the theory of evolution does and doesn't claim. The kids at least deserve an honest explaination.

And then there is the spectre of "alternate theory of Intelligent Design". Which is a complete joke. There is no alternate theory. There is zero science behind Intelligent Design. No research no evidence no nothing. Just some religious fanatics trying to attack knowledge because it calls in to question their fundamentalist views of the Bible.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the change of the word evolution was just done on purpose so that she could change it back and everyone would think something had been "fixed" and the real story could die.

Do we really want to be teaching our children that hundreds of years of evidence (Darwin worked with an already large body of data so it didn't start with him) and 100 years of intensive research and data , with some of our best minds looking at it, is no more valid than some half-baked idea that isn't testable and has no evidence to support it? That they should weigh the two ideas, one based on facts the other on hot air, on even ground?