Florida's religious right to do battle again with science in education.

[madfloridian]

Florida's battle of science versus religion is not over. It's been to court, it's been made into law that teachers now will teach only evolution in science classes. But the religious right is not going to accept it, and the battle continues.

Evolution Debate Starts Again In River City

The evolution versus intelligent design debate comes back to Jacksonville. Florida State professor Dr. Michael Ruse has made a career studying the history of evolution.

"In particularly in recent years, I have been very much interested in the relationship between science and religion," Ruse said that his studies have focused on the history of the evolution debate.

He is the main guest at a round table discussion about the two subjects tonight. He said he knows that State Senator Steven Wise is pushing a new intelligent design bill in the state legislature and thinks now is a great time to be talking about the two subjects.

"I realize the kinds of issues I am dealing with are issues that intelligent grownups are going to differ about," Ruse said. But he said that evolution should not be competing with intelligent design.

"There's two separate answer about what you are doing which just aren't answers of the same kind, they are dealing with different issues," Ruse said that science and religion are not necessarily at odds. He does have his view, "I happen to think that intelligent design theory is religion by another name," Ruse said.

Florida legislator to start the battle between science and religion all over again, though it has been decided already.

Evolution vs. intelligent design: The Tallahassee battle returns

Just in case you missed it over the weekend, state Sen. Stephen Wise has decided to run the intelligent design issue back through the Legislature this spring.

"If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking," Wise, A Republican and the powerful Senate Education Appropriations chairman, told the Florida Times-Union. News of the pending bill filings drew nearly universal groans from Democratic lawmakers this morning. Several said that if the proposed legislation echoes last year's so-called academic freedom bills, which most Democrats opposed, then it's wrong in both substance and timing.

"It's time the other side joined us in the 21st century, whether it's this issue or global climate change and global warming," Rep. Rick Kriseman, D-St. Petersburg, told the Gradebook. "This bill, if it's filed again, will give voters a chance to see which political party has evolved."

"The Florida public wants us to try to fix this economy, create jobs, fund important programs like education and health care," said Rep. Marty Kiar, D-Davie, the Democrats' go-to guy on education in the House. "They don't want to see us debating things like evolution and creationism … and like last year, the truck testicle bill. Those are things we should not be focused on right now."

One of our Florida Democrats is willing to go along with Wise, thinking it might be a fair bill. Frankly we need Democrats to stand up here and say enough is enough...science is science, religion is religion. I don't like seeing a Florida Democrat go along with this bill.

"My first impression is that on its face it sounds fair, if all it's saying is if you teach one theory, then another theory ought to be taught so that people have informed choice," said Rep. Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg. "But without really studying it more, I can't say I have a position on that."

Darryl Rouson, take a stand and quit being so wishy washy.

Teachers in some areas have not been comfortable using the word evolution, or even teaching it. From February last year:

Sometimes, Allyn Sue Baylor doesn't teach evolution in her science class, even though the state requires it. She knows of other teachers who duck the issue, too. They fear a backlash.

"There are cases when parents have gotten really upset," said Baylor, who teaches at Palm Harbor Middle School in Pinellas County. "It's scary. You can lose your job."

Meanwhile, David Campbell, a science teacher at Ridgeview High in Clay County, near Jacksonville, heads off conflict by telling students what may seem obvious: There's a big difference between science and faith.

As an emotional debate continues to unfold over Florida's proposed new science standards - standards that students will be tested on next year - it's surprisingly unclear how often kids raise concerns about evolution, how teachers respond, and how many avoid the topic altogether. To answer those questions, the St. Petersburg Times attempted to contact more than 50 science teachers in the Tampa Bay area and beyond. Most did not respond.

Florida teachers leery about subject of evolution

The David Campbell mentioned above recently spoke to Cornell University about the difficulties of teaching evolution in Florida.

Campbell, a Cornell alumnus, said he has been very vocal in the battle in Florida over teaching evolution in the classroom. Until last February, teachers could not use the word 'evolution' in class, only the phrase "change over time," Campbell said. Campbell helped in the most recent rewriting of Florida's state education standards.

"People in the North don't understand what the climate is like down where I live," Campbell said Tuesday. His lecture will explain how it is to teach a concept that seems to attack the very foundations of his students' faith, who can sometimes be openly hostile to it.

"To say that man descended from an ape-like creature goes right back to Genesis, where it says, 'God created man in his own image,'" he said. Many of the children who enter his classroom firmly believe in creationism by the time they are 12 or 13, said Campbell, who is Anglican.

FL teacher to speak at Cornell

It is true it is a difficult subject. In our county we have a school board in which most members do not approve of teaching evolution. They prefer intelligent design. But that's not all. There's a county superintendent in North Florida who totally debunks evolution. He stated that there are holes big enough to drive trucks through in the theory of evolution.

A growing number of North Florida superintendents and school boards are objecting to the state's proposed new science standards, saying the standards give too much credence to evolution and leave no room for alternative theories.

Evolution is "going to be taught as fact, and everyone knows it's not fact," said Dennis Bennett, the superintendent in Dixie County, west of Gainesville. "There's holes in it you can drive a truck through."

At least seven of Florida's 67 school boards, all north of Ocala, have passed opposition resolutions, according to the Florida Citizens for Science, a group that supports the standards and has been methodically searching board minutes.

That number could double by the time the state Board of Education votes on the standards Feb. 19, said Wayne Blanton, executive director of the Florida School Boards Association.

"It just shows the nature of Florida," Blanton said.

Yes, it does show the nature of Florida. I can see that teachers in Bennett's county might not feel comfortable teaching what the law tells them to teach. What a commentary.

[Taverner]

1. STUPID fundies!

[pleah]

2. Oh, for the love of pete.

I am really sick of these wackos.

[scytherius]

3. My GOD I hope the people with a brain show up in force

I am SO sick of stupid in this ocuntry.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Science starts with a theory and looks for evidence to destroy it.

"I happen to think that intelligent design theory is religion by another name," Ruse said.

Right on.

Religion and ID start with faith and look for evidence to support it.

Science starts with a theory and looks for evidence to destroy it. The theories left standing are strong.

Completely different orientation and one that is commonly misunderstood.

[KakistocracyHater]

11. hypothesis

don't use the Christian deformed definition of "theory", it is called hypothesis & if true it then becomes law, or theory. I'm saying this not just to you but everyone, try not to deform the meanings of words how the Right does, but slang terms are fine if it gets the idea across faster.

I'd love it if a philanthropist would get scientists to create collectable 'latest dinosaur discoveries', little figurines. I'd LOVE it if they also put out all the 'missing links' that have been found, like baseball cards or some such, with a timeline to show context.

Pop culture can actually be used to protect knowledge by making it fun & easy to find.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Theory is a good term of science

No, I was not using the christian pejorative sense.

19th and early 20th century physicists did not stop trying to tear down Newton's theories or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

A hypothesis is the seed of a theory.

[KakistocracyHater]

32. alright, I just see "science starts with a hypothesis

& then tries to tear it down".

[madfloridian]

5. Shaping children's minds to meet the demands of the 19th century

That was written in a letter to the editor. It was well-deserved.

Polk County, Florida: "Shaping children's minds to meet the demands of the 19th century."

Now that in a majority sampling of the Polk County School Board has indicated that a biblical explanation or creation should be taught along with evolution in science classes, I would like to humbly suggest a few other minor changes in the county. First, let's change all the road signs coming into the county to read, 'Welcome to Polk County — turn your clocks back 100 years.' Second, let's have the school motto changed to say: 'Shaping children's minds to meet the demands of the 19th century.'

One has to wonder what has happened to the constitutional provision for the separation of church and state. I suppose the School Board will have to edit that out of civics classes just to be on the safe side.

This picture was in the paper....it just about says it all.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. Trouble, Right here in River City. With a capital T that rhymes with E and that stands for Evolution

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JustJeking]

8. what?!!

Jesus - here we go again. *rolls eyes* We're in a middle of TWO wars and a severe economic crisis, and this is what these people most care about right now?

[madfloridian]

9. Exactly right. Their rigid narrow agenda is all that matters.

It's sad.

[MrScorpio]

10. Religious nutbags NEVER give up

And this is a perfect time for them to pop up, when our minds are on more important concerns

[SmileyRose]

12. This is what a christian warrior looks like.

I'm not quite sure why they look just like the satanworshipers who crucified Jesus but there you have it.

[YOY]

18. Not too sure how a guy with a sword...I mean the "word of God"

Is actually spreading any "gospel of peace."

Of course we're dealing with folks who take what they want literally and what they don't want figuritively on a changing basis.

[Chulanowa]

13. Darryl Rouson caught my eye with this

"My first impression is that on its face it sounds fair, if all it's saying is if you teach one theory, then another theory ought to be taught so that people have informed choice,"

I agree! Let's wait for the ID people to come up with a sound and tested scientific theory, and then we'll teach both theories!

Idiots still don't grasp that in science, "theory" does not mean "hunch"

[snake in the grass]

15. I am so happy...

...that I no longer live in Florida.

[ekwhite]

16. 'Intelligent Design' is not a theory

It is not even a provable hypothesis. It is easily disprovable by observations of natural selection in action. The development of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals is a perfect example of natural selection.

Patients with a bacterial infection are given antibiotics. During the course of antibiotic treatment, the bacteria that are more resistant to the antibiotics survive longer, and are transmitted to other patients by hospital personnel. These patients develop an infection that is resistant to the first antibiotic, and are given a second antibiotic - and so on, and so on. That is why we have so called 'superbugs' like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus areus (MRSA) in hospitals now. Hospitals are starting to get the idea, and are developing practices like hand washing and disinfection of personnel between patients, for example.

[byeya]

17. And, if the ID position should somehow become accepted,

why is the right wing Prot creation myth, or myths since Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 differ, be the automatic default position? I used to live near the Hopi reservation and visited the Sipapu in western Grand Canyon where Hopi souls come from - quite remote and a beautiful place. So why not the Hopi myth? The Navajo{Dineh} myth?; Buddhist? Hindu?
It seems the fundies are ashamed of their religion that they have to give it a crypto name and try to sneak in their fairy tales via politics.
I'll leave your imaginary friend alone if you'll leave mine alone, asshats.

[struggle4progress]

22. Objection to claims that "ID is science" should note: (1) ID does not seek

naturalistic explanations, and (2) ID is not disprovable

Scientific theory building involves examination of alleged material causes, governed by natural physical laws in space and time. An alleged "theory" cannot be scientific, unless there is a way to discover that the alleged "theory" is wrong. Science is often concerned with discovering what is currently wrong with its theories, by experimental observation/measurement and calculation, and then trying to improve the results. The arguments for ID are not disprovable in this sense, hence cannot be improved by the scientific method, and are therefore philosophical, rather than scientific

Proponents of ID typically make philosophical arguments, such as The species on earth are so complicated, that they could only have been designed. Such a sweeping statement cannot be the subject of direct scientific argument; at the level of scientific investigation, one must investigate much more focused questions, such as How do micro-organisms evolve under exposure to anti-biotics? or Can we systematize such-and-such a portion of the fossil record, consistent with our best estimates of fossil ages based on our knowledge of geology?

[DaLittle Kitty]

38. PRECISELY! ID Is Just Another Distraction From Our Economic Woes Which Were Created By The Same Crew

That is promoting ID! These people ARE MORONS! The Sunday School nonsense has gotten out of hand as these podunkers would have us still sewing our own clothes and driving horse and buggies. The resistant antibiotic discussion is PERFECT PROOF of evolution and there ain't no holes that can be driven through in a truck except for the Intelligent Designers oxymoronic as it may be! :think: :puke:

[olegramps]

19. It is a prime example of tyranny of the minority.

Peter F. Drucker pointed out in the 1980s that our society was becoming increasingly dominated by single issue minority groups. These groups are infested with fanaticals that are determined to impose their will on the majority. These are not limited to religious groups which initiated this type of tactic but also became the tactics of lobbyists. Most people just don't have the dedication and stamina of these radicals who gain control of local school boards and governmental agencies and are successful in determining policy.

[JenGatherer]

20. If we don't teach reality in the schools

our nation will become a lot like the Taliban in a few generations. These fanatics will become the terrorists of our time. The only way to stop them is with rational, critical thinking skills. It's really sad how hard they believe in this nonsense.

[donquijoterocket]

24. critical thinking skills

You'll note that for the fundigelicals critical thinking skills only exist in the context of questioning Darwin's theory.Questioning the IDiotic "theory" , or the basis of religion, especially christianity, is next thing to heresy.My take is that the "controversy" results from very poor science education on the whole in this country.Although there may not be a way to reach the true believer fundigelicals who are determined to see this country a theocracy or as close as they can get to it.It's mostly about comfort. Religion comforts people with its certainty- especially the certainty that they are one of the deity's elect- while uncertainty is the very basis of science.One wonders how much this is going to end up costing the state of Florida, or some poor unsuspecting Florida school district who falls into the Dover trap.

[struggle4progress]

21. An Interview with Michael Ruse (2007)

“For the First World, America is the only country that has not taken the Enlightenment seriously”
by Paul Comstock
April 3rd, 2007

Is it appropriate to teach Intelligent Design (ID) in biology class? Is ID a legitimate scientific theory?

... I don’t think that it is. I think that any supposed science that appeals to causes that are non-natural is not a science as we understand the concept today – and incidentally as people understood it in the past ... I would like to see comparative religion classes in US high schools and would be happy to see ID and Creationism generally taught as topics here – along with other forms of Christianity, and Islam (in this day, I think this is very important), and other world religions. But they would be taught as topics and not as the truth ...

You argue that the Darwin vs. Creation argument is often a battle of two religions. Can you explain that?

... I am not saying that Darwinian theory is always religious – it is not. I am saying that often evolutionists use their science to do more than science and to give a world picture – origins, special place for humans at the top, moral directives – that we associate with religion. Creationism I argue flatly is a religion – the religion of biblical literalist, American protestant evangelicals of a right wing persuasion. Creationists deny that their position is purely religious, but I think that they do this to avoid the separation of church and state embedded in the US constitution. I suspect that many Darwinians will take issue with my claim that any part of their theorizing is religious – but I have made my case and rest it ...

http://calitreview.com/80

[madfloridian]

23. I don't think I can agree with this statement....

I am not sure if believing that teaching only science in science classes is being a "Darwinian"...not sure of the terminology.

BUT..I disagree with him that it is used as religion like the creationists use their ideas.

I do not think it is the same.

So as a retired teacher who knows the pressure on teachers here to never say the word evolution....I disagree with his statement that giving a world picture based on scientific knowledge is religion.

[struggle4progress]

26. Before disagreeing with you, let me say that I am Darwinian in my scientific views,

and that I think evolution belongs in the school science curriculum from the earliest primary years -- by which I mean students should receive age-appropriate instruction about how we explore questions regarding the age of the cosmos and the earth, how we interpret and date geological features, what we know about the fossil record, how our knowledge can be systematized and checked by using ideas from other scientific fields, what we know about genetic mechanisms, and so on

Unfortunately, all evidence suggests that the US does a rather poor job of educating its students in science and math -- and having been a teacher myself, I am quite convinced myself that is not entirely the fault of teachers

An important aspect of the failure is this: in the public school years, a large fraction of the population is taught dogmatically; students are asked to memorize from (too often incorrect) textbooks that do not really provide much insight; I think I never heard a cogent scientific or mathematical argument in a classroom until the end of junior high school, and I heard them only infrequently during my high school years; the situation has probably not been improved by the teaching-to-the-test emphasis resulting from NCLB. When exposure to "science" consists merely of exposure to conclusions uttered as dogma, an uninformed population has no compass by which to distinguish this supposed "science" from other dogmatic utterances. I suspect such educational backgrounds account for much of the resistance in some circles to the claims of (highly informed and dedicated) scholars, that the earth is billions of years old, that the progress of life on earth doesn't really appear to follow the story biblical literalists want to tell, that the fossil record really supports long-term development of species, that phylogenetic trees based on DNA analysis usually (though not always) support earlier morphological classifications, and all the other ingredients that underlie modern evolutionary theory. The fact is, simply, that without a solid general background, students will not be able to appreciate evolutionary theory as the only serious contender for a scientific theory of origins

So the first point is that science is needed in science classrooms: we simply don't have the luxury of allowing philosophical or theological discussion there. But one should be clear what one is doing and why: god-talk does not belong in the science classroom, because science is concerned with natural explanations and the gods (whether or not one believes in any of them) are irreducibly supernatural. There's nothing wrong with philosophical or theological discussion: but any god-talk should occur in a philosophical or religious context, not in a scientific context

The second point is a mirror image of the first: science is concerned with natural explanations for natural phenomena, and that is all; science does not answer ethical questions for us, nor does it resolve how we should think of ourselves or what purpose we should assign to our lives. These questions involve existential choices that science cannot make for us; science may sometimes inform our decisions, and we might often want the factual input it can provide; but there are aspects of our experience that cannot be reduced to a neat computational scheme based on axioms derived by experiment. If I say, I will be judged, at the end of time, by whether I loved my neighbors, that is a statement that has no scientific content, and so it is a scientifically meaningless statement; you may believe that I will be judged or you may disbelieve it, but if you argue the statement is meaningless, because it has no scientific content then you miss the mark, because the qualified scientifically meaningless and the unqualified meaningless do not carry the same semantic intension. You are, of course, free to hold that the qualified scientifically meaningless and the unqualified meaningless have exactly the same extension, but that is a philosophical position which cannot be resolved by the scientific method. Some people not only fail to make the distinction themselves but take the position that no one else is allowed to make the distinction either: that, again, reflects a philosophical stance that cannot be resolved by scientific inquiry. Richard Dawkins, for example, apparently believes that "the soul" in the sense of something that spiritualizes us by some mysterious spirit is a nonsensical idea that will be eventually destroyed by science; his argument presumably is that when one looks for such a thing by scientific methods, one does not find it; I say he is engaging in an inappropriate effort to shed light on a philosophical or theological question by scientific methods that cannot be expected to produce any results; if he disagreed with my interpretation, we should be pointlessly stuck there, because he would take the view that scientifically meaningless and meaningless meant the same thing, whereas I should take the view the phrases have different meanings. Such pointless arguments do not belong in science classrooms: Dawkins' view, of course, is a religious stance

<edit: typos & clarification>

[madfloridian]

27. We are defining "religion" in differing ways....thus no common ground..

to have the discussion.

I am speaking of the fundamental religious view. I do not consider the teaching of evolution in science class as a religious point of view.

I am not speaking in such analytical terms as you are using. I am simply trying to point out the fact that the religious right are trying to exert control again over what we think, teach, and believe.

[struggle4progress]

28. Of course, teaching evolution is science class is NOT a religious point-of-view: it is simply

teaching science in science class

I merely tried to point out what Michael Ruse might have meant by "evolution-as-religion"

The religious right is full of it, of course. I also think there are rather few people there: they win these fights by dragging in a bunch of other folk, who are typically ambivalent. I think the distinction Ruse would make between "science" and "religion" may be useful for winning these fights

[Dollface]

25. That does explain 8 years of GWB. Obama's election really is a miracle.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[George II]

29. Do they NEVER give up? Don't they know how to read and reason?

They think evolution and similar concepts threaten Christianity?

These people have a bizarre perspective on the world, the world that GOD created. Truly sad.

[Goblinmonger]

30. I wonder how the current SCOTUS will rule.

They seem to like moving us closer and closer to a pure theocracy.

[TWiley]

31. The fucking Mackerel Snappers are at it again.

Lets see ..... Mathematics is a theory, and gad torturing and killing his only in order son to tranquilize himself into forgiving the rest of us for being the sinners that he was stupid enough to create in the first place .... is a fact right?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. Yep, and polar bears made their way to the Middle East....

to be included in Noah's Ark.

[Althaia]

34. ID is not science!

..and has no place in a science classroom.

There was a recent post on PZ Myer's blog that I think is applicable. The Discovery Institute, a group of creationists, requested a 'I.D. vs evolution' debate from an evolutionary biologist at the University of Vermont. Professor Gotelli's response is a thing of beauty.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

a choice tidbit:

"Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category."

[Kievan Rus]

35. They're just wasting time

The Fundies have been fighting this futile battle for years and they lose every time. Aren't they even thinking of throwing in the towel?

If Fundies want to teach their kids "creation science" in private schools or in the privacy of their own homes, I really don't care. I DO get upset when they want to push this psuedoscience into public schools that my tax dollars pay for.

[BreweryYardRat]

36. And people wonder why...

...as someone who's seriously considering becoming a teacher (albeit history, not science), I intend to move to the other side of the country before getting my teaching certificate.

[Beartracks]

37. The other side

>"If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking,"

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

First off, not everything has "another side". Just because you don't agree with something or understand it, does not logically mean that there must be some "other side." And even if there were another "side" it might not necessarily jive with whatever YOU think it might be.

Second... science by its nature already involves critical thinking, and critical thinking has already provided us with the theory of evolution. Preaching to the choir, I know, but the term "scientific theory" is not the same as "belief," "notion," or "idea," nor even plain old "theory."

Shall we also teach that Atlas still holds the world on his shoulders alongside teaching about gravitational systems and centrifugal forces in astronomy? This would not be PROMOTING critical thinking, but rather INSULTING it.

[BR_Parkway]

39. Just tell them God looks like an ape and humans were changed

by sinning over time to not look like Him/Her.

Meanwhile, our kids fall further and further behind the rest of the world in education, their parents entire financial existence is falling apart and this is the most pressing issue?

[infidel dog]

40. Okay, okay... You believe the universe is only 6000 years old, and created

in one week? You really think Adam and Co. rode around on dinosaurs until a flood covered all the continents and Noah ran out of room on the Ark for the great reptiles? Great. Now go instruct students in natural sciences. You know, I didn't think any topics were beyond satire, but I may have been mistaken...

[fascisthunter]

41. "Everyone Must Follow Tenants of My Cult!"

Religious right wing, always trying to control people, yet they all lack self-control.

nutcases