Georgia goes with "biological changes"

[db44]

MetroSource:

(Atlanta, GA) -- Georgia students could graduate from high school without learning much about evolution. State Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox has proposed new middle and high school science standards which would strike references to "evolution" and replace them with the term "biological changes over time." Critics say the decision could further weaken learning in a very vital subject. Outraged teachers say the state is undercutting the science education of young Georgians. Cox declined requests for an interview on the issue. A spokesman for Cox called the discussion of evolution "an age-old debate" and says that they are anxious to hear from Georgians on both sides of the issue.

[tiger_rascal]

Whats the difference in "biological changes over time" and "evolution"?

I believe that something like that has happened on this earth and that God started it, but I really dont see the need for name changes, as if its not confusing enough already.

[young again]

Back in high school when we learned about the fall of Rome and the middle ages, I used to wonder how the scientific/technological advances of such a great empire could be so lost for so long... but then you see this new medievalism and it doesn't seem like such a mystery after all.

[bluehorizonx10]

I'm at a loss for words.......really.

[pinky]

"biological changes over time."


Sounds more like menopause to me. :p

[bekahbeans]

*cackles*

Well they can call it whatever they want. It's still the same thing.

[db44]

I wonder if they really are the same thing. I mean, do they just say "biological changes over time" and that's it? Without showing or describing the changes? It could just mean how people have grown since the Middle Ages.

[tiger_rascal]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/striking.evolution.ap/index.html

Same thing, different name. :rolleyes:

[DoubleEdgeSword]

"Cox repeatedly referred to evolution as a "buzzword" Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching."

Oh please, talk about catering to the conservative gaggle. Political semantics. Jeez.

Next thing will be renaming sex education to "homo sapien reproductive techniques." Oh, and we can call history "the rememberances of some people way back in the day." And English composition? We'll call it "how 2 rite lik dis." Philosphy? "Stuff other than Christianity." Archaeology? "Old stuff that people dig up." Anatomy? "The body, you know.. naked." Government? "The US is always right." Humanities? Well.. heck what do we need that for anyway? Just old pictures and buildings and music and stuff nobody cares about. Reading? "Books made into movies." Psychology? "Some theories on why people do stuff."

[bekahbeans]

lol! It really is that ridiculous.

[db44]

*GASP* Double said "sex"! :blueeek:

I'm curious how much these schools teach other theologies. It also seems strange to me, 'cause at my high school we were taught about the major Western Religions, and in biology we were taught about evolution, but also discussed creationism. Why is it so wrong to teach both and let kids decide what they believe? What's the fear of being open to science?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Oh noooooo! ;) lol

Actually Dave, I think the issue of teaching creation in a science class has been discussed. I am of the mind that creationism is not science; it cannot be proven through any scientific means. I don't have a problem with teaching about creationism in comparitive religion classes or something along those lines.

[db44]

I agree about science/evolution. But my point was more about what's so wrong about teaching the multiple opinions? Why be afraid of somebody else's opinion?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I'm not sure I understand your point. Creationism is discussed in the classroom, although it's usually in higher education, and not in science classes.

[db44]

I don't mind what class it's taught in. Although I think if done properly, bio should touch on creationism and religion classes should at least discuss evolution for a bit.

But's why so much fear over one word?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by db44
I don't mind what class it's taught in. Although I think if done properly, bio should touch on creationism and religion classes should at least discuss evolution for a bit.

But's why so much fear over one word?

Now come on, Dave. lol. That word carries a lot of weight behind it. It's not just a word, it is the bedrock for an entire system of religious beliefs.

I think if I were a science teacher, I would bring it up only in the context of explaining scientific theory and scientific fact and why creationism cannot be given serious consideration by scientists.

[tiger_rascal]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
Actually Dave, I think the issue of teaching creation in a science class has been discussed. I am of the mind that creationism is not science; it cannot be proven through any scientific means. I don't have a problem with teaching about creationism in comparitive religion classes or something along those lines.

Can the "big bang" ever really be proven?

[tiger_rascal]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword

I think if I were a science teacher, I would bring it up only in the context of explaining scientific theory and scientific fact and why creationism cannot be given serious consideration by scientists.

Thats fine that creationism can not be given serious consideration by scientists, but what concerns me are the young people under the teachings of those scientists that have such a close minded view. How about we let them decide for themselves what is more logical, the "big bang" or a "higher power".

[DoubleEdgeSword]

They can get instruction on creationism at church. Who else better to teach it? They get instruction on science in school, where those teachers are qualified in that field. I don't see what would keep them from making a decision based on those two teachings.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by tiger_rascal
Can the "big bang" ever really be proven?

I think this is where people tend to confuse the issues. There are theories, which are conclusions based on facts and evidence. There is evidence that the universe began with a "big bang." When enough evidence is gathered, when enough facts are known, and when results can be verified by many scientists, then a theory becomes accepted in the scientific community. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.


Will it be proven? I think the jury is still out. But there is evidence, there are facts. A theory only tries to explain the why of that evidence and those facts.

On the other hand, creationism is a faith-based belief, not supported by scientific facts or evidence. And that is the nature of faith.. it needs no proof. But it is not science.

[tiger_rascal]

The "big bang" issue with me is that there are so many conflicting reports. I really could care less about the majority rules concept in the scientific community. What concerns me is that even if many scientists decided that the "big bang" was simply not scientifically sound, it would continue to be a popular theory, thus not being dropped by the community and still be accepted in science books as a plausible theory, no matter the lack of evidence to strongly prove it.

Im not doubting the possibility of a "big bang", my concern is what caused that "big bang" if there was one?

There are questions that we humans have that will simply not be answered.

Im just happy that I do not have to prove my faith. Although some people act as though I should, then maybe they will believe with evidence, but thats how some people feel about science as well.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I think you have a valid point, Chad. There have been theories that have been accepted then proven wrong later on down the road. As to it being disproved and the textbooks not keeping up? The big bang theory is so high profile that I don't see that happening. And I think there are so many conflicting reports now because it's a hot topic. It seems every day there is more and more evidence to evaluate.

[bekahbeans]

I don't have a problem with teaching about a higher power possibly being involved in the creation of earth or evolution, since some scientists are beginning to believe it looks that way anyway. What I do have a problem with is teaching the Christian creation myth unless you're going to present the Hindu, Buddhist, Egyptian, Muslim, Sikh and...well you get my point.

[db44]

I get your point, and it's a good one Bekah. It's also part of the reason I reject religion: So many different beliefs, how can they all be the way of God (or in cases, Gods?) They can't be all right, as their stories of creation all are different. Nevermind their theologies.

But Chad, the big bang is one thing. Wil it be proven? Who knows? I doubt it.

There is however ample evidence pointing to evolution. From lifeforms we've watched over time to even watching ourselves. I used the example of our height before... That is why if you go to some surviving European dwellings have such low ceilings and small doors. We were shorter. The reason our (humankind's) teeth shrink over ages is because we process our food more and more. Heck, we have liquid diets and pill-sized servings of the vitamins and minerals we need to live. Chewing tough, uncooked meets and veggies is not nearly as much of an issue as it was years ago.

Combine those two aspects for a second: You have just wandered into a recent study about Japan. Since WWII and the "Westernization" of Japan, the youth of Japan have been growing taller and fatter. Why? Because the likes of Mickey D's has moved in. The diet of the average Japanese child is no longer based on fish, rice and soy. There's a lot more beef and chicken. More starch, as opposed to just rice, which is a lerge proprtion of water when cooked, now you have less-hydrated (more compact) forms of starch such as patato and bread. Can you imagine a McDonald's without fries or buns? That's sixty years of history now, and look how much the Japanese have "evolved" on a biological level.

Here's another fact, and I hope nobody perceives it as racial: Why are people who go back generations on Southern Hemisphere land masses darker than those of us in the Northen Hemisphere? Its the way nature compensates for the sun. Let's look at what seems to be (in both scientific and thological circles) the birthplace of human life: Egypt and the Middle East. Let's call them the medium, as they live upon the equator, and tend to be an in-between pigmentation in the grand scheme of things. Look what happens as human life spreads out: The further south the original people went, the darker they seemed to have come. In the plains of Africa and Australia, in the jungles of South America... Where the sun is the hottest, most penetrating and there are places it is hard to escape it. Where pigmentation would darken quickest, it has. Where a light-skinned person would sunburn very quickly, the poeple indiginous are of shades that aren't conducive to sunburn. On the other hand, look at Europe. Italians and people along the Mediterranean tend to be the darker people of Europe while the Scandinavians, locked up in the coldest, least sunniest areas of the world are perhaps the pailest people on the globe. People evolved with the conditions around them. And in these cases above, they evolved in time frames where we can document it easily!

Why do you think you hear about germs and viruses with multiple strains? Why do they talk about bacteria that aren't suseptible to "anti-bacteria" soap? Even they evolve to combat deadly conditions.

Evolution happens, and it's proven. And these examples are over how many years? a handful of thousands... In some examples I gave, in a handful of decades. Humans and all living creatures evolve and change because of their environment. How can you just write it off in class or make "evolution" a buzzword? Concequently, with so much change in so little time, wouldn't it be an anomoly to not change drasticly over hundreds of thousands of years?

And now this is where the people who have disbelief in science will tell me it's because God "protected" man or he kept us this way since the beginning of time. No, I can't believe it, not when there is proof of a predecessor to Homo Sapien out there. Not when we have proof of evolution over the lifetimes of some of our older living generations. Show me where in the any scripture God said "Thou shall give starch to the Japanese after you defeat them." If you want to tell me God made the scientific laws by which evolution occured, I can accept that. I would even go as far as to say I could believe it. But in my eyes, where ever we started (molecules, amoebas) we are just like a toy car which God put down one day and went speeding off on our own until we became what we are... And will continue on until our final destination.

[bluehorizonx10]

And will continue on until our final destination.

You give some very good evidence of evolution Dave. And I agree with that. I think the word evolution has become taboo to some of the Christian leaders because it's aimed at one specific point of the alternate theory of creation. Scientists seem to want it all one way......their way. Change is inevitable. God brought about the changes Himself because of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. We live, we work, we die. That's life. And I do believe that children should be taught evolution in that respect of change for all the reasons and expamples you've stated.

And yes, we will continue to downgrade life in general until we destory our own world. God tells us this. He gave us all options and the will to make our decision to either be guided by Him or go on our own way. That's why He did give us a way out. But, of course, it's all our choice. Just like His children in Israel, He took care of them to a point, but also let them go their own way which brought destruction to some. If we take His gift and follow His instruction we will have life forever, if not........well then sobeit. Like I've said so many times before what do I have to lose, but all to gain by my belief.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I don't think scientists want it "their way," Gail. I've heard other Christians express this sentiment. I think it only appears that way because scientists deal in facts and evidence, and creationism doesn't lend itself to scientific study. I do believe though, that there are scientists who are Christians who may want nothing more than to prove creationism. But, the facts just don't support it.

[bluehorizonx10]

But God doesn't need proof by facts, He only asks for faith. It's really a very simple concept that people want to make too complicated because they have the world view on their mind and heart rather than the spiritual view.

[bekahbeans]

I for one, think the Bible supports evolution.

*ahem*

Genesis 1

20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth and across the dome of the sky."

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.

Interesting wording there eh?

Then there's the simple order of how God created things. First water, then plants, fish, birds, animals, humans. Maybe not exact, but pretty darn close to how life evolved isn't it?

Not to mention the whole idea of the gap theory (between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2) which supports the earth being waaaay old.

There's a scripture in James too that seems to allude to evolution though I can't remember where now...

Anyway...I've been arguing with my uncle about it since Christmas. I think I'm wearing him down and he's starting to see my point. bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!!

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by bluehorizonx10
But God doesn't need proof by facts, He only asks for faith. It's really a very simple concept that people want to make too complicated because they have the world view on their mind and heart rather than the spiritual view.

I think that's my point, Gail. Religions are faith-based with no need for proof. I just wonder why so many Christians want to try to bolster the creation theory at the expense of evolution. I mean, if Christians truly believe in creationism, then why should the theory of evolution even be an issue for them?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Bekah, what's the gap theory? I've never heard of that.

[bluehorizonx10]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
I think that's my point, Gail. Religions are faith-based with no need for proof. I just wonder why so many Christians want to try to bolster the creation theory at the expense of evolution. I mean, if Christians truly believe in creationism, then why should the theory of evolution even be an issue for them?

Everything in the world goes through changes as Dave pointed out, but evolution is just another word for change imo. To me the theory of evolution the way it's taught in the respect of people evolving from apes or fish is not true, and that is the aspect of the theory that I'm totally against and I laugh at. This is because the Bible says He created man in His own image. Jesus was a man, not an animal or a fish. I don't think the creation story needs any help at all. It is; that's enough. And you're right.......faith is all we need. Worldy views are extremely hard to overcome, even for the stongest Christian. It's a constant battle; the devil sees to that.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

So what if some believe we evolved from apes? There is clear evidence that points to it. But, if you don't buy it, that's okay. But, why do you feel a need to disprove it?

What is it that you feel you need to overcome?

[bekahbeans]

gah, I had some awesome websites about it but I seem to have deleted them from my e-mail. I can see if I can find them again, but the basic idea of the gap theory is that there were 2 different creations and there is a gap between Genesis 1 and 2

Genesis

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkeness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So in the beginning God created the heavens and earth [insert Gap here] now the earth is somehow formless and empty. How could it be in this condition unless it already existed? Therefore, the creation story that follows must be a second creation story.

The articles explain it a lot better, especially dissecting the wording and things like that, so I'll have to find them. But I've heard some people who theorize that the first earth met with some sort of natural disaster (a meteorite perhaps) and that's where the dino's went and all that, and then when it started re-forming, that's when mammals were able to increase in # and Homo Sapiens began to evolve.

Obviously it's theory so no one can prove it, but I think it's a darn interesting one.

[bluehorizonx10]

Me? I'm not trying to disprove anything. Overcome what? Maybe my words aren't coming across the way I mean them this morning........or ever.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

lol.. nah, it's okay, Gail.

I was just asking because I see so many Christians trying to disprove evolution, and they get really emotionally charged about the issue. And I wonder why they do that.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Originally posted by bekahbeans
gah, I had some awesome websites about it but I seem to have deleted them from my e-mail. I can see if I can find them again, but the basic idea of the gap theory is that there were 2 different creations and there is a gap between Genesis 1 and 2

Genesis

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkeness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

So in the beginning God created the heavens and earth [insert Gap here] now the earth is somehow formless and empty. How could it be in this condition unless it already existed? Therefore, the creation story that follows must be a second creation story.

The articles explain it a lot better, especially dissecting the wording and things like that, so I'll have to find them. But I've heard some people who theorize that the first earth met with some sort of natural disaster (a meteorite perhaps) and that's where the dino's went and all that, and then when it started re-forming, that's when mammals were able to increase in # and Homo Sapiens began to evolve.

Obviously it's theory so no one can prove it, but I think it's a darn interesting one.


Hmmm.. I'll go back and read Genesis to see if I understand what you're explaining. It does sound interesting. Thanks Bekah.

edit: Okay, I read it. Well, to me it seems like the earth when first created by God was formless; that is, it had no features, it was basically a sphere covered completely in water. Then he created light, night and day and then he created the land. It seems logical in its context. I don't really see a gap there.

[bekahbeans]

that's definitely another possibility, although I find the gap theory more likely. Like I said, I didn't explain it as well as the things I've read had. To each his own ;)

[DoubleEdgeSword]

If you find those websites, post them, okay? I'd be very interested in reading what others have to say on the subject.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I found a very interesting site on evolution if anyone is interested. It also takes into account the creationist views, although I haven't read into the site far enough to say what the information is.
Anyway.. the site is http://www.talkorigins.org/

The FAQs are of particular interest.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
This link addresses the top ten misconceptions about evolution, and defines some terms.

Oh! This looks like a good one too.. God and Evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

I thought this site would be helpful in our discussions of evolution and creationsim, especially when we use certain terminolgy. I think it would be beneficial if we all used the same definitions.

[bekahbeans]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
If you find those websites, post them, okay? I'd be very interested in reading what others have to say on the subject.

will do. My uncle sent them to me, so I'll just e-mail him and ask him for them again.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Thank you, Bekah. :)

[bluehorizonx10]

Originally posted by DoubleEdgeSword
lol.. nah, it's okay, Gail.

I was just asking because I see so many Christians trying to disprove evolution, and they get really emotionally charged about the issue. And I wonder why they do that.

Ahhh....yes I gotcha now. Yes, some do unfortunately. IMO anger and arguing is defeating the sheer purpose of the love we try to explain. Thanks. :)

[tiger_rascal]

Just for the record, in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I actually believe in evolution, at least the Bibles version, that God created everything and got the ball rolling. But I do not believe humans evolved from a rock or something. There have been obvious changes that would be hard to deny, thats the beauty of Gods miracle of nature.

This has turned into quite an interesting discussion. :)

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I wanted to read what the Catholic Church had to say on this issue. The following is taken directly from the First Vatican Council, the section on Dogma. I find it very telling, and I think it gives me a greater understanding why some Christians will not accept anything but creationism.


Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith,
particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they
are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

Basically the church says, what we say is the truth, and no matter what evidence, logic, facts, conculsions, theories, etc. that the secular world presents on the merits of evolution, Catholics are to systematically and without debate on the possible merits, dismiss them.

Wow.

[oldernow]

I am not Catholic, but i think that if we want to learn anything about any given subject we should look into it. I dont think that the Church has a right to make such statements. I grew up in the Catholic religion, and the one thing that bothered me most is we were told that the Bible should not be read on our own, that in order for it to be understood was to have a priest explain God. I felt they had something to hide and that made me want to read it all the more. For the record, I dont agree with much the vatican has to say.

[bluehorizonx10]

Our church has been working on a constitution for about a year and a half now. We finally a few weeks ago voted it in. I'll post two sections that I think states how we feel about the Bible and creation. These are my beliefs totally except one thing that I'll point out. I didn't make waves over something that to me doesn't change the end in any way at all, at least I don't believe.

The Holy Scriptures

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally and plenary inspired Word of god. The Scriptures are inerrant, infallible and God-breathed, and therefore are the final authority for faith and life. The sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the complete and divine revelation of God to man. The Scriptures shall be interpreted according to their normal grammatical-historical meaning. The Bible does not contain the word of God, it is the Written Word of God. The King James Version of the Bible shall be the official and only translation used by the Chruch (II Timothy 3:16-17 II Peter 1:20-21; Revelations 22:18-19.)

Creation

We believe that God created the universe in six literal, 24-hour periods. We reject evolution, the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, and Theistic Evolution or any unsctiptural theories of origin (Genesis 1:2, Exodus 20:11.)

Here is where I tend to differ a little in my belief. I don't think God's time is our time, the 24 hours throw me a little. But in the end it doesn't change anything, so I didn't contest or ask it be changed.

Ultimately we live by the Word of God as it stands. That I have no problem with.