Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 01-12-2004, 11:46 AM

Georgia Performance Standards-DRAFT

High-School Biology Curriculum (pdf)

I haven't had time to review them. I'll comment latter.

Edit to Add:

Please sign the following petition. (You don't have to be a GA resident to do so.)

http://www.petitiononline.com/gasci04

Quote:

We strongly encourage the state of Georgia to incorporate the entirety of the AAAS benchmarks. A complete science education is essential to scientific literacy and to our state's economy.

RufusAtticus · 01-12-2004, 12:10 PM

Well the obvious observation is that "evolution" isn't even mentioned in the standards. "Biological changes over time" is.

Even in the section of standards about evolution it isn't even listed as one of the terms students need to know.

What a bunch of crap!

RufusAtticus · 01-13-2004, 08:02 PM

bump

Worldtraveller · 01-14-2004, 05:26 AM

I don't know, all in all, I found found it rather promising, even if they were afraid to use the 'E' word.

This near the beginning sounds good, especially if it is taught as a general way to approach all things being scrutinized.

Quote:

Students will be aware of the importance of curiosity, honesty, openness, and
skepticism in science and will exhibit these traits in their own efforts to understand
how the world works.
a. Understand how curiosity, honesty, openness, and skepticism affect the progress of
scientific inquiry, and exhibit those traits in their own scientific activities.
b. Know that different explanations often can be given for the same evidence, and it is
not always possible to tell which one is correct.

Let's see if that gets reworded in the final draft.

I also noticed a lot of little qualifiers about scientific prejudices, such as this:

Quote:

b. Scientists working together tend to see things alike and may have trouble being
entirely objective about their methods and findings. Scientific teams are expected to
seek out the possible sources of bias in their investigations� hypotheses, observations,
data analyses, and interpretations.

Which is fine, again, as long as it is applied universally.

I guess the trick for cretinists will be to explain how all of these principles of skepticism should be applied to evolutionary claims, but not to thiers.

Cheers,
Lane

RufusAtticus · 01-15-2004, 04:03 AM

Georgia used AAAS' Benchmarks in drafting the standards.

It is interesting to note what was excised from the AAAS Benchmarks. For example,

Part F Evolution of Life
Present:

Heritable characteristics can be observed at molecular and whole-organism levels-in structure, chemistry, or behavior.
Natural selection leads to organisms that are well suited for survival in particular environments. Chance alone can result in the persistence of some heritable characteristics having no survival or reproductive advantage or disadvantage for the organism. When an environment changes, the survival value of some inherited characteristics may change.
The proportion of individuals that have advantageous characteristics will increase.

Missing:

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.
Heritable characteristics can be observed at molecular and whole-organism levels-in structure, chemistry, or behavior. These characteristics strongly influence what capabilities an organism will have and how it will react, and therefore influence how likely it is to survive and reproduce.
New heritable characteristics can result from new combinations of existing genes or from mutations of genes in reproductive cells. Changes in other cells of an organism cannot be passed on to the next generation.
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.

hezekiah jones · 01-15-2004, 05:58 AM

If I'm not mistaken, Bush's "No Child Left Behind" deal requires all states to revamp their science standards by ... sometime this year was it? So I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of this nonsense.

Albion · 01-15-2004, 12:00 PM

Looks like they've chosen the bits that describe microevolution, since creationists have conceded that much, but ignored the bits that extrapolate to deep time. WHAT a surprise.

RufusAtticus · 01-18-2004, 09:08 AM

Here is the letter I'm working on to send to the school or regional paper. (Note this is version 2.)

Quote:

Last month pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. chose North Carolina over Georgia for the site of a new vaccine manufacturing facility citing the better skilled workers and better education system of our neighbor. Earlier this month the Georgia Department of Education released drafts of the future science standards for K-12 education. These standards are supposed to be �stronger� and the foundation of a �world-class curriculum.� Sadly they verge on being a joke. The DOE has gutted biology education by removing the very basis of modern biology due to the religious and political controversy around it. Instead of ending the controversy through education, the DOE seeks to perpetuate it through silence. We do not compromise history education for holocaust deniers, why do we compromise biology education for evolution deniers?

The DOE utilized the Project 2061 benchmarks of the American Association for the Advancement of Science as the foundation of our draft standards. Instead of strengthening these national benchmarks to create a truly world-class curriculum, the state of Georgia has weakened them by removing sections concerning the history of life, common descent, human origins, the role of man in the ecosystem, the big bang, the age of the earth, etc. The intent is clear, and the pseudoscientific sympathies our governor and state school superintendent expressed during their campaigns are now threatening our state�s future.

The DOE has even eliminated the mention of evolution in the biology standards and is certainly clueless if it thinks that college freshman are not expected to know what evolution is. Good biology teachers will still prepare their students for college, but we do not adopt standards because of our good teachers. The lack of proper standards means that, as bad teachers chose to only teach to the standards, the majority of high school students in our state will not graduate with a proper education.

What students know when they get out of high school directly impacts what they know when they get out of college. The more time that is spent in college teaching students things that they should have learned in high school biology, the less time there is to prepare them for employment after college. Compromising K-12 science education directly compromises the economy of Georgia. At a time when the state is desperately trying to court the biotech industry, these science standards encourage them to look elsewhere. Merck was not the first company to bypass Georgia because our public education avoids modern biology. It probably will not be the last unless we actually adopt a world-class curriculum. Incorporating the entirety of the AAAS benchmarks, including the sections that ignorance finds controversial, is the best and easiest way for the state to proceed at this point. A decade from now with such improved standards the companies will come to us, instead of us going to them.

Information and links about the draft standards can be found on the website of Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education, www.georgiascience.org.

I'd appreciate any comments.

secular buddhist · 01-18-2004, 10:43 AM

Very nice letter, RufusAtticus. Nicely written, and makes your point well. I, for one, wouldn't recommend any changes.

Of course, someone is going to rebut that "evolution" is not necessary to do pharmaceutical research, but not much you can do about that. Also, I would think that someone is going to make a big deal about your comparison of creationists with "holocaust-deniers" - although it's clear what you mean it is pretty much a "hot button" that someone is sure to push.

Tau · 01-18-2004, 10:50 AM

Only one comment from here. You're missing a word:

The DOE has gutted biology education by removing the very basis of modern biology because of the reliopolitical controversy around it.

But I like the letter. Very nice.

01-15-2004, 04:03 AM	#5
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Georgia used AAAS' Benchmarks in drafting the standards. It is interesting to note what was excised from the AAAS Benchmarks. For example, Part F Evolution of Life Present: Heritable characteristics can be observed at molecular and whole-organism levels-in structure, chemistry, or behavior. Natural selection leads to organisms that are well suited for survival in particular environments. Chance alone can result in the persistence of some heritable characteristics having no survival or reproductive advantage or disadvantage for the organism. When an environment changes, the survival value of some inherited characteristics may change. The proportion of individuals that have advantageous characteristics will increase. Missing: 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. Heritable characteristics can be observed at molecular and whole-organism levels-in structure, chemistry, or behavior. These characteristics strongly influence what capabilities an organism will have and how it will react, and therefore influence how likely it is to survive and reproduce. New heritable characteristics can result from new combinations of existing genes or from mutations of genes in reproductive cells. Changes in other cells of an organism cannot be passed on to the next generation. 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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2004, 12:10 PM	#2
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Well the obvious observation is that "evolution" isn't even mentioned in the standards. "Biological changes over time" is. Even in the section of standards about evolution it isn't even listed as one of the terms students need to know. What a bunch of crap!

01-13-2004, 08:02 PM	#3
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	bump

01-15-2004, 05:58 AM	#6
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	If I'm not mistaken, Bush's "No Child Left Behind" deal requires all states to revamp their science standards by ... sometime this year was it? So I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of this nonsense.

01-15-2004, 12:00 PM	#7
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Looks like they've chosen the bits that describe microevolution, since creationists have conceded that much, but ignored the bits that extrapolate to deep time. WHAT a surprise.

01-18-2004, 10:43 AM	#9
secular buddhist Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 104	Very nice letter, RufusAtticus. Nicely written, and makes your point well. I, for one, wouldn't recommend any changes. Of course, someone is going to rebut that "evolution" is not necessary to do pharmaceutical research, but not much you can do about that. Also, I would think that someone is going to make a big deal about your comparison of creationists with "holocaust-deniers" - although it's clear what you mean it is pretty much a "hot button" that someone is sure to push.

01-18-2004, 10:50 AM	#10
Tau Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Et sted i Danmark Posts: 315	Only one comment from here. You're missing a word: The DOE has gutted biology education by removing the very basis of modern biology because of the reliopolitical controversy around it. But I like the letter. Very nice.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.