Georgia has ambitions of becoming the next big high-tech state, a new center of scientific achievement in fields ranging from cancer research to nanotechnology. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been committed to that effort, which our business and political leaders say is essential to the state's future prosperity. And the most important factor in the success of that effort will be our ability to recruit science-oriented companies and personnel to the state.
Meanwhile, Georgia is removing the word "evolution" from its middle school and high school curriculum guide because it is deemed to be "a buzzword that causes a lot of negative reaction," according to the state school superintendent.
And it's not just the word that disappears: The proposed changes will also gut much of the instruction that would allow an understanding of evolution's underpinnings. Other changes are being made as well, including deletion of mention that the Earth has a long history, because such a statement conflicts with literal interpretations of the Bible claiming that the Earth is young.
Yeah, this move to high-tech is gonna work out just fine.
As of last week, news of our backslide into the 19th century had been published in newspapers all over the country, including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Kansas City Star and the San Jose Mercury News, which serves the center of the high-tech universe, Silicon Valley. Imagine the impact of that.
It is not merely that scientists will now be reluctant to bring their families to a state where their children will be miseducated, although that will hurt immensely. It is not merely that company executives will now be leery of depending on a work force produced by such schools, although that, too, will be damaging. More fundamentally, they will be wary of an overall political climate so clearly hostile to science and to scientific methods and inquiry.
Kathy Cox, the state school superintendent ultimately responsible for this fiasco, has tried to defend the changes as somehow consistent with science, since it opens up the curriculum to supposed challengers to Darwinian evolution. As she points out, science and scientific theories must always remain open to criticism, challenge and if necessary to revision.
However, that struggle for truth can and must take place within science itself. Notions such as "intelligent design" and creationism have failed to make any headway within real science because they fail fundamental scientific standards of logic and consistency. As a result, those who believe in those theories have tried to move their struggle for acceptance out of science and into the political world, where they can make more progress.
Within science, Darwinian evolution is not controversial or considered under serious challenge, and hasn't been for a century. Evolution is real, it is observable and can be documented. In fact, adaption through competition can be seen in other aspects of life as well, such as economics.
In an increasingly global economy, Georgians will face more and more direct competition for jobs and profits, a competition in which once again the fit will thrive and those less adaptable will suffer. We already know that we will not be able to compete with places such as China for the low-wage, low-skill work that has long sustained Georgia, and will have to instead rely on superior education and knowledge-based skills to maintain our standard of living. That's why the move to high tech is considered so important.
And yet last week, as Georgia was pretending that the word "evolution" was too controversial to mention, scientists in China were announcing that they had documented how the SARS virus had twice evolved -- excuse me, had "changed biologically over time" -- as it migrated from animals to human beings.
You think about something like that and you realize: If they're right about the survival of the fittest, we're in a mess of trouble.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.
© 2004 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
###
