The Slow Creep...

I am not yet sure if I, as a student trying to get his teaching certficate, or teachers should be concerned about the state superintendent of Georgia striking the word "Evolution" from biology curriculums. It seems innocuous enough as they are not striking the teaching of evolution from the curriculum but just the word. I ask myself though, "Will it stop there?" or is this the slow creep toward a total future ban on evolutions teaching? I recognised that the superintendent did this to quell the concern of those parents who disagreed with evolution. Will the teaching of evolution die a slow creeping death? CNN.com

And... how exactly are they going to teach it without referring to it? "The Biological Process That Dare Not Speak Its Name"?

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

I dont see how any thing that present could be. For it to be such a "crawler" the concept of "panbiogeographic uniformitarianism" would be just in kind cost of goods likewise sold or promoted and I have never seen any indication in any creationist literature (there are plenty of posters who have read more of it than me..) in sync with such harmony or disharmony of one's "posion" which is why I am somewhat axious to here how Wise is going to present the pre-flood biogeography this summer in Tennesee.

kansas did away with evolution as a requirement for their state tests. within two years, the people who put forth the removal of evolution were gone and evolution was back in.i teach in a state with its own state mandated biology test. i can tell you that you, as an educator, cover the curriculum that is directly tied into the state test. if you don't have enough time to cover everything you want, and believe me you never do, you make sure to cover the minimum state curriculum at least. if you are running out of time for whatever reason, you cut-out or breeze-by the peripheral stuff that is not on the state test.also, you are observed several times a year to make sure you are doing the job they pay you to do. if you don't teach the state curriculum, you get a bad evaluation. too many bad evals and you lose your job!i know that any decent science teacher would not try to teach evolution without using the term "evolution" over and over again. however, i will admit that there are biology teachers who allow their religious viewpoints and the viewpoints of their community to affect how and what they teach in the classroom. i am sure many creationist or ID teachers are applauding this bullshit notion of teaching about a robust scientific theory, but tip-toeing around the name of it.i think that removing the term evolution from the state science curriculum is dangerous. we should worry about were this leads. today, "evolution", tomorrow--"ok kids, get out your bibles. mark, how many kinds did noah have on the ark? what does what's his name say according to his theory of something-or-another?" we also have to worry about how seriously the students will take their science education if the state is keeping the correct terminology hush-hush.the school system could also put pressure on its teachers to stick to its tests which would be based on the state tests which would not include the word "evolution". once again, if you get some school board members, principals, and supervisors that want you to do something, you either do it, sue it, or move on.one question, why can't georgia just stick to the guidelines set forth in the national science education standards? what do the advocates of bad science want from their community? do they want scientifically literate young adults or not? when cox is on dialysis, does she want one of her former charges to tell her that he/she knows what he/she is doing but doesn't know what it is called? chamberlain, don't sign that pact!?!

I heard a bit on CNN today quoting President Carter being concerned about making Geogia look foolish. The NY Times had something on it too. At least some people are paying attention.

---

Common sense isn't

Well, I am certainly glad that some people are paying attention to this. I think one of my main concerns is that in order to understand or communicate the ideas put forth in science you need to have a good grasp of what terms are used. I worry not only about the possibilities of further educational erosion but also that students, though taught the definitions are not taught the WORDS. Though some scientists might agree that such and such a word poorly describes by itself the nature of what it means, it would confuse the whole process if we change those words without a proper and thorough investigation into what effect this would have on communicating scientific principles. As it is, "evolution" is what scientists continue to use when describing biological changes over time. Learning the terms that science uses when communicating ideas is integral to understanding the processes they are trying to describe.