Title: Other titles may well be better, but keeping it simple is probably a good idea. An alternative might be the simple: The Earth. We need ideas for good titles: a good title will catch the eye of non-earth science students.
Please note that the content of this course has not yet been fully discussed by the committee; this will be a task for an all-volunteer subcommittee which should inolve the people who would teach this course or who have a genuine interest in its development. The summary below is therefore not completely blessed by the committee in detail, although the general concept has support. Thus, nothing is writ in stone.
This is a course that would replace the current Introductory courses in physical ..., etc. But the idea here is not simply a change of title, but a change in the way material is presented. The range of topics should remain large, but we propose that we do not attempt to teach (or try to teach) everything that might normally be covered in an introductory course. Instead, we propose that perhaps on a weekly basis, specific (snazzy, topical, etc.) topics be chosen carefully to illustrate general concepts in Earth sciences. This is an approach used almost universally in the publishing of good science writing: almost anything written by Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Simon Winchester, Simon Lamb, or Gleick or Fortey or even Bill Bryson's new book*. Traditional text books are written in a very different, generally encyclopedic and often tedious way. I think we could learn from the style of so-called popular science books, which tend to grab the reader with something they can relate to and then, once hooked, lead that reader to pastures rich and plentiful.
There is a second way in which the material presentation might differ from that typically done in University introductory courses. We might try more of a discovery approach, in which students start from fairly basic beginnings to eventually appreciate how certain "facts" are obtained. This approach would promote problem-solving and discovery, and ultimately to better retention and appreciation. I've outlined a couple of examples below:
Example 1: The very first topic might be "The Shape and Size of the Earth". And so we begin: what is the shape of the Earth? Oh, everyone knows it's round. But how do you demonstrate that? Ships sailing over the horizon. Shadow of the Earth on the moon. etc. Well, alright, if it's round, how big is it? Up comes Erastophenes and noon-day shadows. (Bill Bryson actually does a nice job here describing some of the earlier attempts, post Erastophenes, to determine the size of the Earth.) This leads on naturally to discussions of gravity and mountain roots and mass anomalies under subduction zones, all of it tied to people. It must as much as possible be tied to the people (and their eccentricities) who did this. Thus, from a very simple question the student learns and understands the connections between relatively complex processes and issues.
Example 2: Another topic might be "How old is the Earth?". I won't go into as much verbage as I did above, but you can imagine the variety of issues and assumptions and historical figures and arguments that can be raised here. In the end, the student finds themselves learning about radioactivity, they are introduced to concepts such as catastrophism, uniformitarianism, conduction, the importance of assumptions (think Kelvin) and of deep time.
These topics should be chosen to cover the gamut of concepts and processes that we feel are important in the Earth sciences. I have no doubt that this could be a long list, and there may be concerns that there is simply too much to teach, to know. We should resist this concern. Of course we cannot teach everything. What we aim to do here is to provide an exciting, selected part of our discipline. If they want to know more, they'll sign up. If not,at least they should enjoy what they've learned and remember it for longer.
* I think it's called A short history of nearly everything.