The Tampa Tribune reports that opponents of Florida's recently adopted science education standards took their first step in the legislature yesterday to counter the State Board of Education guidelines that specifically call for the teaching of evolution. (See prior posting.) The Senate Education Committee, by a vote of 4-1, approved S. 2962, Sen. Ronda Storms "Academic Freedom" bill that would permit public school teachers to "present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical origins." It would also prohibit penalizing students for holding particular views on evolution. The bill now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
30 comments:
This is a farce. The only "academic freedom" they want to promote is the right to push ID and creationism. They claim current law doesn't currently adequately protect teachers from expressing views on evolution? I'll bet less than half a percent of Florida's tenured teachers are fired for any reason. Teachers have some of the best job protection of any profession in existence.
Since when does "academic freedom" mean that only evolution may be taught in schools? Francis Collins admitted that they (scientists) begin with the assumption that there were initial organisms that had DNA and a module that enabled reproduction.
That kind of "science" needs to be exposed and rebutted in the classroom.
Academic freedom doesn't mean that. Lots of things are taught in schools. Math, English, foreign language, etc.
All science, and indeed all knowledge, relies on some assumptions.
ID isn't science, and this amounts to a way to attempt to legislate it into being science.
The idea that public school science teachers are cowering in fear of mentioning it in Florida is simply laughable.
HOw do you know Intelligent Design theory isn't science? Have you studied it C.L.? Do you realize that many REAL and LEADING career scientists are skeptical about orthodox Darwinism, considering it a sacred cow for atheism rather than a proven explanation for origins. Do you realize how preposterous the theory is that life began spontaneously from one- celled organisms without any guiding intelligence behind the process? To entertain other views does not mean teaching religion --it means letting people examine theories of origins using scientific method --or studying the findings of those who do so. Some of the best science teachers/explainers who communicate best, happen to NOT be Darwin believers. Sure, there is natural selection and something to survival of the fittest theory --but we have yet to see organisms cross the classification barriers --they each still produce after their own kind --like the Bible said. NOt that we need mention the bible in public school. But it also shouldn't be outlawed to mention the Bible either. It's an ancient book of great merit. Why be ignorant of its contents here in the west where the book was foundational to our civil rights, Golden Rule, courts, laws, etc.? but I'm not saying it's a book of science --but a book of history --and so far, no dogs have given birth to any creatures but dogs. We just don't seem to be transitioning. Somebody ought to be! Some creature should be a transitional form if Darwin was right--but none seem to qualify. And there is not abundant evidence in the fossil record thus far. Only interpretations with wishful thinking and revisionist historical interp.
"HOw do you know Intelligent Design theory isn't science?"
ROTFLMAO! Are you serious? Yeah, sadly, I see that you think you are.
I'm pretty sure Chimera that you know nothing about the topic or the scientists of the Discovery Institute. Or those at the Institute for Creation Research --or those who publish for Answers in Genesis out of Australia. You know nothing about those with PHD degrees in science from secular universities who do not think Darwin had it all figured out correctly in his atheistic theory. Darwin's theory is in fact always being amended as they find out he was wrong in his effort to imagine how life might have started without any intelligent agent behind the process.
The design scientists, e.g., are not necessarily "creationists" instead of "evolutionists." Some of them are evolutionists --but they believe some kind of intelligence had to be orchestrating the process instead of just an unguided, random, happenstance process of "natural selection." They say the evidence is all there for "design" --and thus, there must be a "designer."
"I'm pretty sure Chimera that you know nothing...behind the process."
And you'd be wrong. Again.
"...they believe some kind of intelligence..."
They are free to believe whatever they like. Beliefs are not facts, and cannot be presented as such.
Right --and all darwin had for his theory was his BELIEF that a 1-celled creature slithered out of the primordial soup under exact, precise, accidental conditions --and the cell divided --and so on --until we had the myriad of life forms we see today. all by natural, random occurences.
Darwin's theory of origins is not fact. It's a belief. Do you really think ANYTHING as complex as the human body just evolved from lower forms to have eyes, brains, heart, skin, digestive and reproductive and all the other bio-systems --by ACCIDENT??? My husband has the equivalent of a PhD in bio-chem --and genetics was an area of superiority for him in med school--he says Darwin's theory for origin of life and diversity is theoretical, unproven, impossible --at best.
Michael Behe, microbiologist/prof debunked the idea that there is no God, no designer --in his Book Darwin's Black Box --he writes about the interdependence of the components of the cell/Dna --such that they had to be designed--and Phil Johnson the Berkely law prof said with his book, Darwin on Trial, that there wasn't enough evidence for Darwin's theory to hold up by any kind of legal standards for proof/evidence.
So we should teach it as the theory
it is --for the truth that IS in it --there is some regarding natural selection within kinds of creatures --but we don't use it to bolster an atheistic idea that all life came by natural means without any divine hand or superintending intelligence..
"Darwin's theory of origins is not fact. It's a belief."
It's demonstrable. That makes it more concrete than mere belief. But do I care whether or not you believe it> I do not. What you believe or don't believe does not affect me, so feel free.
"My husband has the equivalent of a PhD in bio-chem --and genetics was an area of superiority for him in med school..."
Equivalent? Does that mean anything or are you just chanelling Laura Schlessinger? Area of superiority? Is that actually a legitimate term in med school?
Is your husband an actual PhD? Or an MD?
Not that it matters, really.
MD --but he did the research work for the phd at the same time for a professor but did not write the paper as he did not need the PhD, he figured. It was on a cholesterol drug, as I recall. He also did some research at ARgonne nat'l labs with the electron microscope.
Not meaning to channel air of superiority --just my husband's right to have an educated opinion about Darwin and intelligent design. The undergrad degree was biology.
He has said since those days that he had more than one prof point out the improbability of Darwin's idea of origins --because of the complex interdependence of amino acids --blah blah--over my head. Even before the discovery of DNA as such.
there are so MANY scientists, in research AND medicine, who do not swallow all of the Darwinian interps of scientific evidence. There is much conjecture and LEAP to conclusions among hard-core darwinists who so often have an agenda to just defend atheism --the way the Scopes trial was also a debate between the religious and the irreligious.
It is just preposterous in my layman's view to think there is no designer/intelligence behind the beauties and wonders of nature, our bodies and the universe.
Darwin wasn't wrong, just incomplete. For his time, and with the information available to him at the time, he was an amazing thinker, and without him, we wouldn't know nearly as much as we do about biology and genetics. Darwin also isn't anti-religion.
If you want to take refuge in the thought that there is a grand designer upon which you can lay all the blame or praise for life as you know it, go ahead. I have no argument with that.
But teach it to my kids? No way!
It wouldn't hurt your kids to hear truth, would it? about our amazing bodies? That the components of the basic life unit, the DNA molecule --are interdependent like the components of a mouse trap--all have to be there at the same time to work togetther--and could not have evolved separately -- Why should anyone be allowed to insist that we evolved from lower life forms if it isn't proven? All the similarities of creatures do not PROVE common descent --but instead prove merely that we have features in common with other creatures.
If my kids have to listen to Darwin's fantasies, your kids should hear that there IS evidence that can be interpreted to contradict Darwin's assumptions. So let the theories compete --using scientific method of testing and interp of evidence.
Ok Barb. You say we couldn't come about without some type of designer? Riddle me this, who designed and made God?
While you're thinking, I'd like to agree with you that kids should hear the truth. Of course, that would mean we'd have to dispense with all those fairy tales you insist on doling out. (by the way, what flavor is today's kool-aid)
Might I suggest you take the time to read a wonderful book called YOUR INNER FISH by the discoverer of the transition fossil Tiktaalik(sp?). Anyway, it's really good. It's about explaining our anatomy with evolution. For example, last night I learned how the bones in a reptile jaw became the bones to our inner ears allowing us to hear high frequency sounds.
-American Atheist
O for pete's sake! (No offense to you or Pete.)
Common design features do not prove descent.
The mystery of God's eternality is no reason to think that LIFE started without any designer.
How can anyone believe that? It boggles the mind to look at all the diversity of life and the marvels of engineering behind all living creatures--how can you conclude that it all just "happened" by natural selection --when you see no creature transitioning today --just shared design features --like all cars have wheels! That doesn't mean the cars evolved from one another. We resemble apes because God has a sense of humor --not because they are our ancestors.
You didn't answer the question, Barb. Who designed the designer?
And I suppose that the evolutionary stage in the development of a fetus when it has gills and fins is simply God's way of playing "cute" with it?
"...when you see no creature transitioning today..."
Whoa! You can't see it because it happens too slowly to be detected by a human attention span, not because it's not happening! Several of those finches of Darwin's have already evolved in their own habitats, due to changes in those habitats.
And, while not a life form, cars do and did evolve from one another. What works is kept and what doesn't work is dropped from the next incarnation. You've accidentally stumbled upon a better argument in favor of evolution than you'd like to know...lol.
Barb, I have another point. You say "how can you conclude that it all just "happened" by natural selection --when you see no creature transitioning today...". You think this is a blow against evolution? How about we turn this question on it's head?
Why don't we see God creating new creatures every day? Why just during the first week? Is He tired or did He just run out of ideas? I think the lack of "new" species is a black mark against your God-Hypothesis.
Let's make this a scientific question right up the Discovery Institutes alley.
Let's get Michael Behe to put an empty, locked cage in a zoo and wait for his Designer to magically poof a new, never before seen creature weighing approx. 150 lbs. into existence in the cage. If He does that, I'll change my stance on His existence. Give it a year and if it doesn't happen, Michael Behe has to admit he was wrong and shut the hell up.
Time to answer my own trick question: Who designed and made God?
We humans did of course.
-American Atheist
"We resemble apes because God has a sense of humor --not because they are our ancestors."
o_O
.........
Barb? A sense of humor? You mean the apes were just a joke?
AA -- Oh, I'd settle for a brand-new creature of any weight between 100-200 lbs.
Cars don't reproduce, and thus aren't subject to natural selection.
Have you seen and understood a cladogram, Barb? It might help you understand why it's not just "shared properties" that evolutionary biologists are talking about.
http://www.thegodargument.com/?gclid=CLmPz5CQv5ICFSQpIgodykCbXw
This page was linked on the dictionary definition of cladogram.
Yes, I am aware of the diagrams that attempt to show the descent of various organisms --I had not heard the word "cladogram." But I know that the diagrams have changed --as new info comes to light -- but no matter what, the picture does not prove common descent. It doesn't matter what features creatures have in common --we have NO proof of common descent --not even in the shared DNA with the apes. God can make any DNA he wants --and he could easily have built/designed the same DNA into multiple creatures who share traits/features.
I think it's a big problem for you darwinists that there are no creatures transitioning today --you say, "O well it happens so slowly, too slowly to observe" --and you also say, "it happens quickly in bacteria --new forms all the time."
Yes, and what do you get when bacteria evolve? bacteria. What do you get when viruses evolve? viruses. These are evidence to interpret against Darwin--because these critters evolve so often and quickly --speeding up the process described for mammals who needed billions of years to transition.
Those who transition fast enough for us to observe the evolutions NEVER cross their "kind" of creature! Just like the Bible says --each reproduces after its own kind. Dogs beget dogs --cats beget cats --and we can't pro-create/breed a cat-dog or a doggish-cat.
we can't pro-create/breed a cat-dog or a doggish-cat.
How about crossing a lion and tiger? That works. How about crossing a horse and a donkey? That works too but you get a mule I think. It's not the sort of thing I follow so I may have some of it backwards.
Crypticlife, it isn't the apes that are the jokes, we are. Ever heard of apes arguing and killing each other over the existence/non-existence of something no one has ever seen?
-American Atheist
Barb's argument regarding the non-transitioning of species is interesting, but wrong.
Species do not cross-pollinate because their chemical structures do not match. And because there is no biological need to cross-pollinate.
The absolute best example today of evolving organisms is the virus. Yes, it stays a virus. That is its job...to be a virus (just like the job of the ape is to be an ape) and invade the cells of other living organisms and change their structure into food and habitat for its own propagation.
We humans tried to kill off several viruses by inventing medicines. But we humans, who think we know everything, aren't all that smart when it comes to following doctors' orders; and when we feel better, we stop taking the medicine (because it tastes bad or it's inconvenient, or because some diety somewhere promised us eternal life...whatever...).
The virus that we almost killed isn't dead, though, and it recovers. It gets stronger. And it evolves itself to a new form -- one that is not affected by the medicine.
That is evolution, Barb!
Yes, chimera it IS --evolution within a species --i.e. natural selection.
No creationist or ID theorist disputes natural selection within a kind of creature --new varieties can be bred --but they are still what they were -- flowers are flowers and cats are cats --and viruses are viruses.
For Darwin's theory to be wholly true, our so-called common ancestors had to gradually change to evolve into humans --and so humans should be gradually evolving into some new creature. But we are
not -and nothing is observeably so. And no fossils prove transition.
The only changes are within "kinds"
Yes, the horse and the donkey make a mule --and last I heard, the mule could not procreate?
Cross a tiger and a lion and you get a big CAT -- cross a lion and a horse, and my guess is you'll get nothing.
"Cross a tiger and a lion and you get a big CAT -- cross a lion and a horse, and my guess is you'll get nothing."
Of course you'll get nothing. Except maybe dinner for the lion. I said it before -- their chemical and genetic structures don't match. Equines have a different number of chromosomes than felines. You might as well try to impregnate a fence post and claim that because you can't do it, the whole concept of procreation doesn't work.
"For Darwin's theory to be wholly true, our so-called common ancestors had to gradually change to evolve into humans --and so humans should be gradually evolving into some new creature."
Evolution happens over a span of time, and as need arises. And it isn't one of those presto-changeo flashes of prestidigitation, in which we stuff one form of the species into a box, wave a wand, and "magic" happens. You can't watch it happen! You can only see it after the fact. Long after.
Humans, like apes, are a type of primate. When the need comes for a more advanced form of primate, it will happen. The current orders of primate may or may not disappear, again, as need arises. We have already tracked the broad evolution of our ancestors from neanderthal to Cro Magnon to homo erectus to today's yuppie drone in an anagenetic line from the cladogenetic split. The next incarnation is rumored to be homo superior. Time will tell.
Bovines have already evolved back to the sea in the form of -- ready for it? -- killer whales.
Birds evolved from reptiles.
And the entire earth is an archeological library. So far, we've only begun to read the table of contents in the first volume.
No you haven't tracked anything that has evolved. You have only drawn your cladogram and drawn lines from one fossil find to another. You haven't proven descent in the least.
Birds have some features in common with reptiles. So? I assume reptiles didn't fly --aren't evolving NOW to fly --the evolution is not proven. Science is a study of observeable phenomenon --anything else is speculation.
I don't have any investment in whether or not you, personally, believe in evolution. Not my problem. What would make it my problem is if you try to teach my kids your cockamamie theories and call them "creation science."
You go ahead and teach your own kids what you want, outside of school. See how far they get in life, armed only with outdated and unexplained fantasies. But it's not your perogative to decide what other peoples' kids learn in public schools. Just like it's not the perogative of the flat-earthers to ban globes in public schools because they cling to the theory that no one has proved the earth is actually round. Ish.
My husband got pretty far, as I told you before, as have many other modern-day scientists --while not believing in Darwin's theory of origins.However, you are right that there is a conspiracy against scientists and educators who deviate from Darwinian orthodoxy --as Darwin's is a view held religiously. You cannot question or challenge it, unlike other disciplines and theories.
I hear there is a new book and movie by TV's Ben Stein, Yale law school's top student in his class, about evolution.
Go to Ben Stein's Expelled: NO Intelligence Allowed --the movie trailer. You need to see this.
Are there still flat-earthers? The Bible spoke of the 4 corners of the earth so we assume they thought the earth was flat --but everything else in space was round --so there is no reason to believe that everybody thought the earth was flat --or that the 4 corners of the earth wasn't a figure of speech then as it is still today. I understand that there is evidence that not all the ancients or even the biblical folks thought the earth was flat. Didn't the Asians think it was a ball on top of a turtle's back? or something....
Barb, from what I've heard Expelled is bigoted propaganda associating evolution with atheism and then the Holocaust. The promoters have also been taking pains to keep those critical of the movie -- even those interviewed in the movie who may be critical of it -- from seeing it. Ben Stein is the spokesperson for the movie, but did not write it.
As for Darwinism -- every scientist deviates from Darwinian "orthodoxy". The theory of evolution has changed from Darwin's time. A scientist would be quite thrilled to be able to have a serious challenge to evolution; it would make them famous.
"...you are right that there is a conspiracy..."
NO! NO! NO!
Do NOT put that conspiracy BS on MY shoulders! You bring it up -- YOU own it!
"Are there still flat-earthers?"
Hon, there are all kinds. You really need to get out more and stop living such a sheltered existence.
Is the following the type of "science" that our state government wants taught to children?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes2.html
Post a Comment