Florida: The Standards Decision

A sad day for Florida's students.

My hat is off to Mr. Martinez. Well said, sir, well said.

As I understand it the standards passed (which is a good thing) BUT - the words "Scientific Theory" precede Evolution.

"Scientific Theory" will also precede Atomic Theory - Plate Tectonics - Electromagnetism ... So evolution is not singled out.

A compromise - no doubt - but a step forward.

All together now: Dover Trap!

This is best regarded as an opportunity to educate the public on the meaning of "scientific theory". Our battle is mostly won if this can be accomplished.

The compromise is bad, but it could havebeen much worse.
Perhaps the 'scientific theory of' can now be used to emphasize and teach the real meaning of the phrase. Teachers can use it to counter the often expressed 'it is just a theory'!

This might even help Floridans distinguish the informal concept of a "theory" as in "it's only a theory" from the scientific concept of a Theory as in "Quantum Theory" and "The Theory of General Relativity".

I quite like the fact that teachers will be reminded that these Theories are a very special class of proposition which are utterly distinct from the the other kind of theory.

:-)

Yes, I agree that getting evolution in the standards as a fundamental concept is a good step forward.

My concern is that the distrust and suspicion that surrounds evolutionary theory in the minds of certain Christians will now spread over to all of science, i.e. "well, that's just a scientific theory, like evolution." Adding the word scientific won't help those who don't take the time to learn what that means.

There is already widespread confusion over the term "scientific" in Christian circles. At my last church almost everyone had bought into pseudoscientific health supplements touted to cure all manner of diseases. The outfit selling these went so far as to create their own "peer reviewed" journal to support their "scientific" products. Sound familiar?

Give them an inch and they'll take a ......

A sad compromise, but a small one and over all Florida's students won a tremendous battle today. It is by no means a sad day for them. Florida now has excellent science standards that are well above the national average.

Those of us in the state will just have to keep a watchful eye out for how this language could be exploited. But personally my guess is that very little will come of it. Hopefully I am right.

Brent: It is by no means a sad day for them. Florida now has excellent science standards that are well above the national average.

But personally my guess is that very little will come of it. Hopefully I am right.

This is sort of a humorous twist - the most vocal anti-evolutionist on the BoE, voted against the new wording (which was meant to appease the fundies) because she wanted the standards to say that "Evolution is 'A' concept of Biology" instead of "THE fundamental concept underlying all of Biology".

I am happy to say - she did not get her way :-)

I have a master's degree in geology from Oxford University, and when I was about to be ordained to the priesthood, I wrote to the head of the department there to tell him. He was delighted, and reminded me that the first professors at Oxford in the 19th Century were all priests.

When I moved to Florida eight years ago, I was astonished at the ignorance here, particularly among Christians, and not just the more extreme fundamentalist ones. Indeed, it's more than ignorance, it's a committed anti-scientific attitude.

As someone on the Orlando Sentinel's message board said, this now brings Florida into the 20th Century. Hopefully teachers and scientists can keep the movement going to bring the state's education system finally into the 21st Century, along with most of the rest of the world.

as a florida science teacher i am torn with the decision of the BoE. I applaud their upholding of evolution as a core aspect of biology but i am also weary of the possible exploitation of their wording. I am glad that "theory" has been added to the other scientific parameters so as to avoid singling out evolution.

I can only hope that this inspires more discussion about the meaning of theory in my classes.

So when do the christians start rolling out the 'flat earth maps'and explaining that the earth is fixed solid. Will our models of the universe be replaced also with models of a sun revolving around the earth every 24 hours? Will we have to ignore civilizations older than 10K? Do these people even read the bible?

Do these people even read the bible?

gabriel: My concern is that the distrust and suspicion that surrounds evolutionary theory in the minds of certain Christians will now spread over to all of science...

The Florida Citizens for Science, the people that spoke in favor of adopting the standards as is, and Fighting Bob Martinez did a great job in the face of pressure from religious groups and stunning ignorance in general.

I have two objections to the last-minute additions of "scientific theory" or "law" to every scientific idea in the standards, from electromagnetism to gravity. First, there there was no good secular purpose for it. I wouldn't call it a prima facie violation of the First Amendment, but I believe it fails the U.S. Supreme Court's Lemon Test. Because let's face it, the Religious Right in Florida is so opposed to...plate tectonics.

Second, to paraphrase Prof. David Baltimore on NPR today, evolution is a fact; we can debate how and when it happened, but it occurred (and, I might add, is still occurring). That's the most concise version of the "fact and theory" aspects I've heard with regard to evolution, and it was clearly lost on most of the Florida BOE.

as a florida science teacher i am torn with the decision of the BoE. I applaud their upholding of evolution as a core aspect of biology but i am also weary of the possible exploitation of their wording. I am glad that “theory” has been added to the other scientific parameters so as to avoid singling out evolution.

I can only hope that this inspires more discussion about the meaning of theory in my classes.

— Misha

Maybe things aren't quite as bad as it first looked concerning the "compromise". Casey Luskin is whining about it.

I read the testimony, thanks for note taking.

By the way, where were the evolutionary biologists testifying for evolution? Do none live in the state of Florida?

Or do none believe in talking to the public? Again they seem to have left to physicists, writers and teachers to defend science.

Sadly, academia is commonly intolerant of dissent from Darwinism. Consider the NAS's statement that "there is no scientific controversy" over evolution. Imagine you are a scientist with fundamental doubts about Darwinism and you see the top science organization in the USA asserting that your views don't exist.

Seems like more progress than less. Take what the FSM gives you. Congratulations to the FCFS and all who lit a few candles against the darkness.

If Texas and Arkansas are any guide, the fundie controlled areas up north and the panhandle will just ignore it anyway. But at least they are getting an idea of what the rest of the world thinks of dressing up bronze age beliefs in scientific clothing.

Yestercentury, it was geocentrism and the flat earth. Nextcentury, the YECs.

Democracy is only working when both sides are unhappy with the outcome.

The saddest bit for me is that the confusion between 'theory' and 'guess' is just ONE of the hundreds of ways antievolutionists can confuse the issue, as evidenced by that DI chap PZ debated a few weeks ago, who appeared NOT TO KNOW this distinction, despite it having been clarified years ago and every day since.

It's not difficult, you guys.

It really irritates me that politeness prevents us from making the obvious accusation that they're pretending confusion on purpose. It sucks being the good guys sometimes. They can say whatever they like about us; that we're a bunch of amoral, atheist, religious, cowel wearing, dogmatic, racist materialists, but when we make the rather trivial inferences about their motives, it looks petty.

And if you look, the 'feigning stupidity' act gets them a lot of power.

Behe, for example, is clearly pretending not to realise that his 'stepwise addition' model of evolution is ridiculously trivial and cannot possibly represent evolution correctly. Even if he didn't realise at the time, he must know by now.

It's a CHILDISH error. Behe is a biochemist or something - he must know this! And yet, if he pretends to be stupid, all the ID followers can accept irreducible complexity as support ID.

Dembski does the same. Dembski's No Free Lunch papers, for example, all depend on Dembski pretending to be stupid enough not to realise that evolution doesn't have a random fitness landscape (it's a little like believing that every animal has a random chance of surviving in every scenario). That isn't a trivial stupidity - his argument hinges on that fabulously wrong point. And yet, if he pretends to be stupid, his argument holds.

ID is an assault on good faith.

Frank J:

I can only hope that this inspires more discussion about the meaning of theory in my classes.

— Misha

And outside of them. For 10 years I have never missed an opportunity to correct anyone who uses "theory" as a synonym for "guess that's probably wrong," whether pertaining to evolution or not. Sure, they often look at me like I have 2 heads, but if some of them remember it, it's worth it.

And if you look, the ‘feigning stupidity’ act gets them a lot of power.

How about for ‘it is just a theory’!:

Yeah, it's just a theory that's firmly supported by a huge amount of evidence collected over the last 150+ years by 100,000+ scientists, and during all that no evidence was found against the basic principles.

Henry

James F: Because let's face it, the Religious Right in Florida is so opposed to...plate tectonics.

Steve,

Point taken, I should have used electromagnetism. I sometimes forget the schism between the DI cdesign proponentsists and YECs, who are a step away from full-blown geocentrists and flat-earthers.

But again, see Baltimore's point; just about all of these scientific concepts entail both fact and theory. Fortunately, as you noted, we have no problems embracing the truth - hopefully students will have more of an opportunity to do the same.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Maybe things aren’t quite as bad as it first looked concerning the “compromise”. Casey Luskin is whining about it.

veritas36: Joe Travis, the dean for the Arts and Science at FSU is a very well know biologist.

Personally, I think that teaching the scientific theory of evolution can only be done when you inform the kids also about the many many facts that underly the theory, and as such, I think the compromise is a strengthening of the wording, not a dilution of it. Moreover, this can be used to actually deal with the key of the issue, and that is the misuse of the word Theory by creationists, as the standards as written make the distinction with Scientific Theory, which immediately asks for, how is that different.

I think the anti evolution crowd shot themselves in the foot. Think about it.

James F: Point taken, I should have used electromagnetism.

James T: ... certain foreign bodies.

What is sad is, the proposed standards were "world class" and took a very long time to write. Then, suddenly last Friday night, the board amended the standards to include Academic Freedom language.

How do you take so long to write and review world class language, and then at the last minute change then without going through the same process!

It was a very, very sneaky and underhanded act. Typical tactic of the Creationist/IDs.

I do hope a parent in this system considers a lawsuit.

Its not just a matter of being ignorant, or of feigning stupidity. Its also outright denial. I remember a conversation with the director at the school I used to teach biology at, saying evolution is "just a theory". When I tried to explain to him that a scientific theory means an overarching explanation of reality, he just disagreed, saying "That's not what I was taught in school." Then he complained how scientists shouldn't make up words and change the definitions from what is commonly accepted. So even after being presented with the scientific definition, he opted to conclude that science was wrong to use that definition at all, and therefore it should not be taught in science classes to the students.

Lawsuit on what grounds?

Point of info:

Is this (PDF) http://www.fcrstem.org/Uploads/1/docs/FLDOE/K-12_Proposal2ScienceStandards.pdf
the standard after including these changes: (PDF) http://www.fldoestem.org/Uploads/1/docs/FLDOE/Change%20Summary%20for%20Proposal2.pdf

I found these items here: http://www.fldoestem.org/FLDOE_STEM/Review_FL_Science_Standards.aspx

I note that "scientific theory was added in other places besides evolution in biology.

"BIG IDEA 7: Earth Systems and Patterns
The scientific theory of the evolution of Earth states that changes in our planet" (page 51)

Are we seeing YEC propaganda handles all over this standard?

If it helps promote a general understanding of the phase scientific theory, then it is probably all for the good.

Jedidiah: ... When I tried to explain to him that a scientific theory means an overarching explanation of reality, he just disagreed, saying "That's not what I was taught in school." Then he complained how scientists shouldn't make up words and change the definitions from what is commonly accepted. This I have seen many times; if they didn't learn it in school, it must not exist. There is no hope of changing a mind like that, don't waste your breath.

Dear Wes,

I can't wait for Denyse O'Leary to weigh in too, judging from her latest incredulous inane comments at Uncommon Descent:

http://www.thedesignoflife.net/blog/Critical-decisions-in-science-The-Smithsonian-secretary-vs-the-Cambrian-explosion/View/Default.aspx

However, in all due seriousness, I hope the Florida Board of Education realizes what the difference between a "scientific theory" and a "guess" is; the new science standards do not emphasize this distinction. Let's hope for the best, since Florida appears to have higher educational standards in science than most states. Otherwise, maybe we'll see "Dover Trial: The Next Generation" coming to your local Florda Federal Court sometime soon.

John

Dan meagher:

Jedidiah: ... When I tried to explain to him that a scientific theory means an overarching explanation of reality, he just disagreed, saying "That's not what I was taught in school." Then he complained how scientists shouldn't make up words and change the definitions from what is commonly accepted.

This I have seen many times; if they didn't learn it in school, it must not exist. There is no hope of changing a mind like that, don't waste your breath.

Then, suddenly last Friday night, the board amended the standards to include Academic Freedom language

Page 54:

"BIG IDEA 14: Organization and Development of Living Organisms
A. All living things share certain characteristics.
B. The scientific theory of cells, also called cell theory"

Fundie propaganda: "The new standards are laced with theories!!"

No big deal maybe but let's hope the nutters never have another chance to amend these standards.

"This is part of the standard shtick of all pseudo-scientists; imagining that they are scientists."

Who says what a scientist is?

Coin: As a couple people have already suggested I'd actually maybe look at this as an opportunity. One of the most effective things you can do in framing is take your opponent's language and turn it into your own, in the process redefining that language in such a way it's ruined for anyone else's use. There's an opportunity here for Florida educators to change perceptions of the word "theory" such that it is meant the way it's meant in science, as something to aspire to. With "theory" plastered everywhere in the curriculum, the message can be that evolution is a theory, and that's a good thing. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking. But I can't help but wonder, if the meme becomes "science is just a theory", does this degrade science or just expose the ridiculousness of the "just a theory" line? So I don't think I see the "compromise" as a bad thing, or even a compromise really. I am worried about what this means:

Then, suddenly last Friday night, the board amended the standards to include Academic Freedom language

Could we get more information on that, please?

Well, they are discussing this decision on the Phil Valentine Show. (a nationally syndicated radio show) The host is making just about every single mistake a creationist can make. Confusing unexplained for unexplainable, god of the gaps, irreducible complexity (specifically of the eye), missing link, stating a lack of evidence for any evolution, it just goes on and on. He even said what i consider to be the most ridiculous statement: "If man came from apes, why are there still apes."

Did my part to call in and correct him, but he of course just went on with the same faulty arguments.

I think the anti evolution crowd shot themselves in the foot. Think about it.

MelM: Page 54: "BIG IDEA 14: Organization and Development of Living Organisms A. All living things share certain characteristics. B. The scientific theory of cells, also called cell theory" Fundie propaganda: "The new standards are laced with theories!!" No big deal maybe but let's hope the nutters never have another chance to amend these standards.

NATURE OF SCIENCE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE Standard 3: The Role of Theories, Laws, Hypotheses, and Models The terms that describe examples of scientific knowledge, for example: "theory," "law," "hypothesis" and "model" have very specific meanings and functions within science. ... Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer. ...

FL - Did you READ the standards?

FL: Therefore, what is needed is not to ban evolution from the schoolhouse, but to teach it as a falsifiable science instead of as an unfalsifiable religion. To teach it with a view to education and not indoctrination. To teach evolution is a balanced, critical-thinking manner, to teach evolution's and prebiotic evolution's weaknesses and problems, not merely its strengths.

Everything in the standards is the SAME - except they added "Scientific Theory" in front of ALL of the theories :-)

By "SAME" - I mean the new, GOOD standards.

Everything in the standards is the SAME - except they added “Scientific Theory” in front of ALL of the theories :-)

Yep: The standards now mention the "scientific theory of cells"
and the "scientific theory of atoms" along with the "scientific theory of evolution". ;) ;)

Yep! They have elevated the "Scientific Theory of Evolution" to the same status as the "Scientific Theory of Electromagnetism,etc...)

(Not that it wasn't before - but now it can't be confused!)

To teach evolution is a balanced, critical-thinking manner, to teach evolution’s and prebiotic evolution’s weaknesses and problems, not merely its strengths.

— FL

Stacy S.: FL - Did you READ the standards?

Frank J:

To teach evolution is a balanced, critical-thinking manner, to teach evolution’s and prebiotic evolution’s weaknesses and problems, not merely its strengths.

— FL

If those "weaknesses" are those arguments from the pseudoscience literature (e.g. "Icons of Evolution") "designed" to promote unreasonable doubt and reinforce common misconceptions, then do you agree that the weaknesses of those arguments ought to be taught too?

Jorde: I'm sure FL would love to go to a doctor that think germs are made up by Big Science and spinal manipulation can cure all ills.

James T said: They’re not exactly fond of electromagnetism either, especially as it relates to the speed of light in relation to the distance of certain foreign bodies.

I wonder if Cornelius Hunter could be this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_G._Hunter

teaching at Biola University: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biola_University

OT - posted for Stanton's benefit:

You may recall a while back I sent an inquiry to Coventry University about Terry Mortenson from AiG. Essentially I asked if Coventry agreed with Mortenson's YEC views on geology, since he has a "History of Geology" degree from Coventry. Here's the reply from the Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research:

I can confirm the Dr. Terry Mortenson has a PhD from Coventry University. He was a student at Wycliffe Hall Oxford, a theological college whose degrees we awarded until it became a permanent private hall of Oxford University and thus able to admit undergraduates and research students to Oxford in 1996. Wycliffe’s teaching and research is focused on theology and philosophy and it primarily recruits students seeking to become Christian Ministers or those seeking to be involved in a Christian Ministry. Wycliffe Hall has no relationship with the teaching or research carried out by Coventry-based Departments. In particular there was, and is, no relationship between the Department of Geography, Environmental and Disaster Management, or its predecessors, and Wycliffe Hall.

The above should not be viewed as any more than a statement of fact as the University does not make comments or give opinion about the actions or activities of former students.

If you read between the lines, it seems he is doing his best to point out that Mortenson's degree is in Theology, not history or (especially) geology.

The way I see it, we can use this "compromise" to our advantage 2 ways. One of course is to finally make a concerted effort to clear up - and not just to students in a biology class - the scientific vs. colloquial definition of "theory."

The other should be directed not to hopeless science-deniers but to the millions who doubt evolution or are "on the fence," because they simply haven't given it much thought beyond the popular false caricature. They need to be aware of the steady concessions of the activists:

In the 1920s they demanded that "creationism" (straight out of Genesis, OEC IIRC) be taught instead of evolution.

In 1980s they demanded that "scientific" creationism (YEC pseudoscience that supposedly "independently" verified one of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of Genesis) be taught along side evolution.

Because it verified none, and only called attention to the contradictions...

In the 1990s they demanded that a "don't ask, don't tell the designer's identity or what He did when" scam called "intelligent design" be taught along side evolution.

In the 2000s they demanded that only evolution be taught, but also "critically analyzed" using arguments hand-picked from creationist and ID literature "designed" to promote unreasonable doubt.

In 2008 they demanded that only evolution be taught, but insisted on prefacing it with "scientific theory" only to exploit common misconceptions of the word, in desperate hope that it would lead the more vulnerable students to infer weakness (and as with previous strategies, their favorite childhood fairy tales).

OK, now step back from all the church-state issues, and think about it. If any of the mutually contradictory alternatives (matching Genesis accounts or not - think of Schwabe, Senapathy and Goldschmidt) had the slightest scientific promise, there is no way on earth, regardless of how much opposition, that the activists would have allowed such a steady retreat.

gabriel: OT - posted for Stanton's benefit: You may recall a while back I sent an inquiry to Coventry University about Terry Mortenson from AiG. Essentially I asked if Coventry agreed with Mortenson's YEC views on geology, since he has a "History of Geology" degree from Coventry. Here's the reply from the Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research: I can confirm the Dr. Terry Mortenson has a PhD from Coventry University. He was a student at Wycliffe Hall Oxford, a theological college whose degrees we awarded until it became a permanent private hall of Oxford University and thus able to admit undergraduates and research students to Oxford in 1996. Wycliffe’s teaching and research is focused on theology and philosophy and it primarily recruits students seeking to become Christian Ministers or those seeking to be involved in a Christian Ministry. Wycliffe Hall has no relationship with the teaching or research carried out by Coventry-based Departments. In particular there was, and is, no relationship between the Department of Geography, Environmental and Disaster Management, or its predecessors, and Wycliffe Hall. The above should not be viewed as any more than a statement of fact as the University does not make comments or give opinion about the actions or activities of former students. If you read between the lines, it seems he is doing his best to point out that Mortenson's degree is in Theology, not history or (especially) geology.

I wonder if Cornelius Hunter could be this guy.

— MelM

NATURE OF SCIENCE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE Standard 3: The Role of Theories, Laws, Hypotheses, and Models The terms that describe examples of scientific knowledge, for example: “theory,” “law,” “hypothesis” and “model” have very specific meanings and functions within science…. Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer….

I just went to the "other side" for a few minutes and FOUND the "Academic Freedom" act that they were trying to push into the Florida Standards.

All of the lies and BS that was going around today at the meeting are "EFFING" proven! The DI is behind ALL of it. "EFFERS"!

OOoooh! I am soooo pissed!

If yes, we should also teach the weakness of the germ theory of disease put forth by chiropractors, homeopaths, and other CAM people :)

— Jorde

With respect to the issue of the lack of education about the scientific meaning of the term "theory":

I teach Geology, Physical Science, Oceanography, and Earth Science courses at the community college level. I used to get a number of creationists just about every semester who would sometime or other complain about age of the earth or evolution (even though I don't teach about biology). In all of my classes now, I teach the scientific method, because of the aforementioned confusion.

When I teach about the scientific method, I explicitly discuss the difference between a hypothesis, theory, and law. My definition of a theory is a hypothesis that has been very well tested, has successfully passed these tests, and accepted by consensus among scientists as the probable correct explanation. I, or students when I ask, can come up with several different, well known scientific theories, including evolution, plate tectonics, atomic theory, theory of chemical bonding, germ theory, gravity, and relativity.

I point out that none of these can be proved in the absolute sense, but that all are so well backed up by evidence (usually over many decades) that they can be considered to be, for all intents and purposes, facts. I also state that if any of these can be proved false by the end of the semester, everyone in class will receive an A for the course. I tell them I do not expect to have to pay up.

This gives them an idea of the very high degree of certainty of a scientific theory. I now get far fewer complaints about the age of the earth and evolution. I think that if this kind of explanation is used along side the current standards, students will begin to understand the difference between the colloquial and scientific use of the term "theory".

GvlGeologist, FCD --- I approve and applaud that approach.

GvlGeologist, FCD,

You may have done this already, but if a YEC wants to challenge geologic ages, tell him to debate an OEC like Hugh Ross, or IDers at the DI. Ross might actually want to debate him, but the DI gang will try to convince him that the ages are unimportant.

Stacy s.,

I see the "Academic Freedom" bullshit mentioned more and more lately. They just come up with one piece of spin after the other with the hope that enough people will be suckered into it and that religion can be pushed into the schools.

ID

Teach the controversy

Teach the evidence against evolution

Critical thinking about evolution

Moment of Silence

Bible literacy

Aceademic Freedom

Christian Nation (I hope everyone knows about House Resolution 888 which may be ready for a vote soon)
...

Yes, my few conspiracy theories usually don't work out but I'm willing to try "DI is behind the last minute changes in Florida"; I really don't think they came from the fool with the oranges.

Did the Academic Freedom bit get shot down?

Gabriel: If you read between the lines, it seems he is doing his best to point out that Mortenson’s degree is in Theology, not history or (especially) geology.

Stacy S: The DI is behind ALL of it. “EFFERS”!

Yes it got "shot down" Thank goodness! The DI website is full of Academic Freedom Act / petition / etc...
BoE member Donna Callaway - " I resent the implication that my motives are religious based" -

effing liar!

Frank: In 2008 they demanded that only evolution be taught, but insisted on prefacing it with “scientific theory” only to exploit common misconceptions of the word, in desperate hope that it would lead the more vulnerable students to infer weakness (and as with previous strategies, their favorite childhood fairy tales).

Academic Freedom shot down. Great! Thanks.

Liars!! Yes. One of my favorite books is "Liars For Jesus" http://www.liarsforjesus.com/

The author, Chris Rodda, is a one woman debunking machine. The energy she has is amazing. The nutters will bend science to fit their agenda and they are also brazenly twisting American history.

I've seen propaganda all my life but this current bunch of religious fanatics is the most consistent and formidable collection of spin doctors and liars that I've ever seen. They lie about everything. They're anti-reason, anti-science, anti-Western civilization, and flat-out un-American--besides being a misery cult.

As a FL science teacher I'm very pleased. I attended the hearing held in Jacksonville and witnessed the fundies trotting out all the old arguments that, had they bothered to research their own cause, were so eloquently smacked down in the Dover case.

There were a great many reasonable people there to defend Evolution's honor. Some even belonging to the clergy, no less (gasp!).

Nevertheless, the wording doesn't bother me a bit. Especially when one remembers that the old standards didn't even bother to include the E-word. It simply gives me another opportunity to hammer in the idea that the phrase "it's only a theory" is wrong! wrong! wrong!

"Historians readily acknowledge that the Copernican Revolution [i.e., the idea that 'the earth moves and turns'] spawned the bloody French and Bolshevic revolutions... set the stage for the ancient Greek dogma of evolution...led to Marxism and Communism...It is reported that Marx even acknowledged his indebtedness to Copernicus, without whom Marx believed that his ideas would not have gained much acceptance...It is thus a small step to total rejection of the Bible and the precepts of morality and law taught therein." - Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., "Why Geocentricity?"

I have a migrane ...

(Florida Baptist Witness) - The academic freedom proposal offered by Kendall and supported by the coalition she represented sought to amend wording in the diversity and evolution of living organisms section of the standards by changing “the” to “a” in its assertion that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence,” and by adding the clause, “and teachers should be permitted to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence.”

" Kendall told the Witness a legislative remedy will be sought to explicitly provide academic freedom for teachers, noting that none of the teachers, superintendents and school boards she consulted had confidence the “Nature of Science” section of the standards would provide adequate academic freedom. "

... This is not over yet. I think March 4th is the next important date that we have to focus on.

Stacy

Hero McGroovy,

With the material in the "NATURE OF SCIENCE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE", I hope you have what you need. It certainly looks like you do--particularly since the standard doesn't leave "theory" undefined. I do think the fundies wanted to drop propaganda handles around but the documment itself doesn't give them a leg to stand on--that is, if they're honest, which they won't be, and if the targets of the propaganda have any idea what's in the standard--which they won't.

FL Lied: But the fact remains that there are questions, doubts, weak spots, blank spots, when it comes to evolution. Pre-suppositions and Pre-assumptions (especially theological assumptions, as Dr. Cornelius Hunter has observed.)

Thanks Stacy,

Crap! Academic Freedom from the legislature? What a revolting development this is! It's just a way of getting DI materials (critical analysis) into the classroom, brought in by the students or the teacher or both. What a scam!!! They'd have to get such material from someplace and it sure won't be Dawkins, or Miller, or PZ.

Kitzmiller v. Dover all over again.

I have STANDING and I'm not afraid to use it!

Casey Luskin - "noted" earth science major, got "published" in the Tampa Bay Observer regarding this decision. See URL (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/18/na-let-there-be-open-debate-over-evolution/#comments) or the same article quickly published on the DI's site. Of course his article contained the same ID nonsense that he and the DI cronies have been peddling to fundamentalists across the country. Florida took the bait, at least part of it.

I just had a great idea. The DI wants 'academic freedom' in science classes...

Well, we should institute a national academic freedom day, where we spend all day discussing various science models in classrooms.

We could have speakers from the DI to talk to people about evolution, then bring in people from the flat earth society. Of course we need to balance atomic theory with alchemy, cause as the DI says, if Newton believes it, it can't be wrong. Then, after lunch we start off with CAM, followed by geocentricism, and end the day with a speech by Niel Adams on the Hollow Earth Theory.

Science is a democratic process, we need to provide the children with every modality so they can vote as to what will be true for thier generation.

Stanton wrote:

"Makes you wonder about the morals of Young Earth Creationists, especially when they falsify their credentials in order to demonstrate their scientific legitimacy."

This Mortenson joker visited my university last week. I can assure you that he was completely ignorant of all of geology, palentology and genetics. For his "thesis" he studied a few "scriptural geologists" who turned out to be completely wrong about everything. That in no way qualifies him as an expert in any field of science. Of course, like any good creationist, he didn't let ignorance of the evidence, (in this case entire fields of science), stop him from pronouncing his own judgements. You really have to wonder what sort of fools would fall for this type of ignorant nonsense.

Thanks to Gabriel for helping to reveal the true background and motivations of this guy.

David said:

Casey Luskin - “noted” earth science major, got “published” in the Tampa Bay Observer regarding this decision. See URL (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/18/na-let-the…) or the same article quickly published on the DI’s site.

I like (/sarcasm/) the DI's complaint (it even misspells "Floridian" as "Floridan" which is relevant only because makes it hard to find in google...).

Usual stuff - biologists argue from authority - and then they argue from authority (poor ones at that the "leading scientists disagreeing with NAS" is just one - Phil Skell). Hence I used the NCSE tag in my ID (that's ID, not DI..)

Thpugh they do invoke Richard "he has 2 Ph.D.s!" Sternberg (always wondered - one wasn't good enough??) with the Industrial Eng/Systems one claimed to be in "evolution". Also wondered if his dissertation committee was asleep in the Mol Biol Ph.D. as well (the reductionistic work is fine but no bearing on the ID claims of course - probably forgot to ask him about methods of inquiry knowledge). Caroline Crocker is obliquely referenced as a martyr for the cause (given her ppt was basically "haw haw Charlie Darwin was a ne'er do well and there's been no evidence for evolution", not surprised she was canned)

Expelled.. teach the controversy.. no evidence... quote mines.. did we mention expelled? ... Ben Stein selling out... help help we're being repressed... tap shoes three times.. there's no place like home.. zzz...

On the serious side, I concur with praise for Wesley and the group from the pro-science Florida blogs for the work and comments. This is not really a time for sleeping.

Casey Luskin is whining about it.

When I tried to explain to him that a scientific theory means an overarching explanation of reality, he just disagreed, saying “That’s not what I was taught in school.” Then he complained how scientists shouldn’t make up words and change the definitions from what is commonly accepted.

FL whistled through the graveyard thus: Florida is only the beginning of this welcome trend. There will be other efforts, other states, other voters, other cities and school districts that will insist on science education reform as well. Ultimately, there may simply NOT be enough evolutionist money and PR and bandwidth to put out all the fires. A most delicious thought!

I have a master’s degree in geology from Oxford University, and when I was about to be ordained to the priesthood, I wrote to the head of the department there to tell him. He was delighted, and reminded me that the first professors at Oxford in the 19th Century were all priests.

— Kevin

veritas36: Or do none believe in talking to the public? Again they seem to have left to physicists, writers and teachers to defend science.

"BIG IDEA 15: Diversity and Evolution of Living Organisms
A. The scientific theory of evolution is the organizing principle of life science.
B. The scientific theory of evolution is supported by multiple forms of evidence.
C. Natural Selection is a primary mechanism leading to change over time in organisms."

"Standard 15: Diversity and Evolution of Living Organisms
A. The scientific theory of evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.
B. The scientific theory of evolution is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.
C. Organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history.
D. Natural selection is a primary mechanism leading to evolutionary change."

"BENCHMARK

Explain how the scientific theory of evolution is supported by the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, biogeography, molecular biology, and observed evolutionary change.

Discuss the use of molecular clocks to estimate how long ago various groups of organisms diverged evolutionarily from one another.

Describe how biological diversity is increased by the origin of new species and how it is decreased by the natural process of extinction.

Describe how and why organisms are hierarchically classified and based on evolutionary relationships.

Explain the reasons for changes in how organisms are classified.

Discuss distinguishing characteristics of the domains and kingdoms of living organisms.

Discuss distinguishing characteristics of vertebrate and representative invertebrate phyla, and chordate classes using typical examples.

Describe the scientific explanations of the origin of life on Earth.

Explain the role of reproductive isolation in the process of speciation.

Identify basic trends in hominid evolution from early ancestors six million years ago to modern humans, including brain size, jaw size, language, and manufacture of tools.

Discuss specific fossil hominids and what they show about human evolution.

List the conditions for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in a population and why these conditions are not likely to appear in nature. Use the Hardy-Weinberg equation to predict genotypes in a population from observed phenotypes.

Describe the conditions required for natural selection, including: overproduction of offspring, inherited variation, and the struggle to survive, which result in differential reproductive success.

Discuss mechanisms of evolutionary change other than natural selection such as genetic drift and gene flow.

Describe how mutation and genetic recombination increase genetic variation."

No wonder antievolutionists are ticked off. These standards pretty much give away the store (in their eyes, at least).

Nigel D - when Kevin wrote "that the first professors at Oxford in the 19th Century were all priests", that makes good sense if he's talking about geology professors. The same applied at Cambridge, where the Reverend Adam Sedgwick was one of the founders of modern geology, and also taught the student Charles Darwin about geology and took him on a field trip to Wales just before Charles got the chance to join the voyage of the Beagle...

@ Art (and everyone else! ) - Thet look pretty good, don't they?

Front page headline on today's Sun Sentinel reads "State's schools to teach evolution, but only as 'scientific theory.'" "But only?" What, the newspaper doesn't get it either?

Stacy, indeed. Except possibly that it lumps abiogenesis with evolution as written, instead of demarcating it explicitly. I mean, if we get "scientific theory" explicitly into the standards, they should also use it properly.

Assuming it is proper or conventional to define out abiogenesis of course. Maybe it is possibly "units of selection" by way of quasi-species replicators all the way down? That would make abiogenesis more of "same same but different" than the gradual overlap suggests.

Brooke,

Tomorrow's headline:

Football to be played in high schools, but only as a sport!

Thank you, Dave. Good one! That was the first comment I ever made on any website anywhere, and I was afraid I might be laughed outa here as a real stupid-head. Instead, you made me laugh.

David Stanton: Football to be played in high schools, but only as a sport!

What, the newspaper doesn’t get it either?

— Brooke Preston

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: Stacy, indeed. Except possibly that it lumps abiogenesis with evolution as written, instead of demarcating it explicitly. I mean, if we get "scientific theory" explicitly into the standards, they should also use it properly. Assuming it is proper or conventional to define out abiogenesis of course. Maybe it is possibly "units of selection" by way of quasi-species replicators all the way down? That would make abiogenesis more of "same same but different" than the gradual overlap suggests.

Stacy S.: As for the rest of your post - I didn't understand what you said. LOL (not a scientist, remember!) "Quasi- Species Replicators"?

Brooke,

Glad to have you on board. Fight the good fight.

@ Ravilyn Sanders. Thanks for your response. I have an understanding of Abiogenesis, just don't understand - “Quasi- Species Replicators”?

... I think this is a significant long-term victory for people who love and appreciate science but want genuine education instead of indoctrination.

— FL

Why “significant”? Precisely because it’s reasonable, small, not an earth-shaking paradigm shift. After all, those who believe in evolution honestly got what they wanted: clearly pro-evolution science standards.

But the fact remains that there are questions, doubts, weak spots, blank spots, when it comes to evolution.

Pre-suppositions and Pre-assumptions (especially theological assumptions, as Dr. Cornelius Hunter has observed.) Arguments from silence instead of arguments from science.

This is how evolution and evolutionists sometimes operate.

Therefore, what is needed is not to ban evolution from the schoolhouse, but to teach it as a falsifiable science instead of as an unfalsifiable religion.

To teach it with a view to education and not indoctrination.

To teach evolution is a balanced, critical-thinking manner, to teach evolution’s and prebiotic evolution’s weaknesses and problems, not merely its strengths.

The thoughtful, genuinely pro-science people of Florida have spoken, and the board has responded appropriately, by validating these concerns while retaining their emphasis on evolution.

One thing is for sure. A powerful new trend is developing, and Florida is leading the way.

There exist cracks in the dike; it will NOT cost science teachers their careers to acknowledge in science class, that cracks exist in the dike. That’s genuine science education right there.

Florida is only the beginning of this welcome trend. There will be other efforts, other states, other voters, other cities and school districts that will insist on science education reform as well. Ultimately, there may simply NOT be enough evolutionist money and PR and bandwidth to put out all the fires. A most delicious thought!

Ravilyn Sanders: Since the theories of origin of life are not as well developed or verified as the theory of evolution, it is not a good idea to club them together. We can freely admit that we don't really know very well how life arose on this planet. It is really not a blemish or a fault. It enhances the credibility of science to say, "if scientists don't know, they admit openly what they don't know, for example the origin of life on this planet". Yes, the creationists will quote mine and spin it. But we should not be swayed because of that.

Since the theories of origin of life are not as well developed or verified as the theory of evolution, it is not a good idea to club them together.

— Ravilyn Sanders

I don't think that I put the link on here yet ... if you are interested in viewing the BoE meeting - go here

http://www.fldoe.org/meetings/2008_02_19/meetingArchive.asp

I think my favorite speaker was the Baptist Minister (go figure) at 1 hour 58 minutes. :-)

Ultimately, there may simply NOT be enough evolutionist money and PR and bandwidth to put out all the fires. A most delicious thought!

I have to give him credit for something - even though it hurts a little - he IS saying "evolutionist" instead of "Darwinist" :-)

Stacy S.: I have to give him credit for something - even though it hurts a little - he IS saying "evolutionist" instead of "Darwinist" :-)

... In other words, teach them all as SCIENCE. You cannot single out a theory, or set of theories(abiogenisis and big bang) just because it conflicts with a book.

— Jorde

Stanton:

Stacy S.: I have to give him credit for something - even though it hurts a little - he IS saying "evolutionist" instead of "Darwinist" :-)

Need I remind you that there is no such thing as "Evolutionism"?

More likely, he would prefer to go to a priest or pastor who could cure him of disease and illness by casting out the devil, demon or evil spirit responsible, rather than risk going to a licensed doctor potentially in league with the evil Darwinists.

— Stanton

For comparison, 400 years after Copernicus, geocentrism is still believed in. We have space probes beyond Pluto, one orbiting Saturn, robots on Mars, and still, 20% of the US population (26% of the fundies) think the sun orbits the earth. This tells one that no matter how absurd a belief is, somewhere around 20% of the population will buy into it. ...

— Raven

Nigel the pedant: Anyhoo, the figures you have indicate that, when questioned, 20% of the US population will claim that they believe the sun orbits the Earth. Maybe they did not understand the question; maybe they are being deliberately obtuse; but we cannot assume that the figure you have there is very certain.

The Earth isn't flat - when I look to the west I see mountains. ;)

Henry J --- That's odd. Here I have to look in any direction but west to see mountains.

Maybe I live on the other side of the flat plate from you?

:-)

@ raven - Half of the population has an IQ less than 100???????????

Stacy S.: @ raven - Half of the population has an IQ less than 100???????????

There is nothing in science that conflicts with the message in the Bible, unless one insists on accepting only the most literal reading of it.

— Nigel D

Which is to say, half the population is below average (or, more properly, below the mean). By definition.

IQ = 100 is redefined every few years. From 1916 until about 1996 this required raising the bar in the U.S., as 'intelligence' scores went up about 7% per generation.

Since then the scores have been declining.

Here's an interesting comment from Florida on the Dawkins blog.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2284,State-Approves-Evolution-As-Scientific-Theory,Local-10,page2#130083

In particular, note the explanation of the 4-3 vote. The vote isn't what it looks like and it gives me more confidence that the new standards will succeed. Also note the support given from outside: "(Eugenie Scott came here personally)."

However, I'm still worried about an "academic freedom" challenge coming from the legislature as mentioned in the prior comment by Stacy S.

Mike Elzinga:

Which is to say, half the population is below average (or, more properly, below the mean). By definition.

The mean is 100 by definition. [tongue-in-cheek] And if we are all drifting downward, at some point we won’t be able to discover this. Maybe we have already passed this point. [/tongue-in-cheek]

From the Dawkins blog commenter linked above, I received a link to Florida Citizens for Science. Looks interesting and perhaps it'll be a way to follow developemts in this very important battle in Florida.

http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=479#comments

Creationists like FL live according to dogma, not science, and thus they cannot think any other way. So they assume that their evolutionist opponents are also dogmatic. Of course, that is both a lie and a failure of their own comprehension.

Creationists like FL live according to dogma, not science, and thus they cannot think any other way.

— Dale Husband

"It's only a theory." Perhaps scientists need to get their own house in order, and avoid the dilution of the term theory. See the link below, and listen to the comments of Bernard Carr from about 7 minutes in. If a "Real Scientist", in the company of the President of the Royal Society, can use the word so loosely, what chance has Joe Public of understanding the significance of a real Theory?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml

As you know, not “the most literal” but any of several popular mutually contradictory readings that all claim to be “literal,” such as OE(old life)C, OE(young life)C, YEC, and some like flat-earthism and geocentrism that have lost popularity in recent decades.

— Frank J

However, if one focusses on the message of the Bible, instead of a literal interpretation of its words, there is no conflict.

— Nigel D

Bill Gascoyne:

However, if one focusses on the message of the Bible, instead of a literal interpretation of its words, there is no conflict.

— Nigel D

But therein lies the problem. The "message" you would have people focus on is your interpretation, and each sect seems to have their own.

"Canon" - sorry

I don’t think that’s a problem. As long as people use whichever “cannon” they want, as a guideline - it doesn’t matter if the messages they receive are different.

Somewhat OT: is it Phrenology? - the discarded theory of facial and head structure?
Reason I ask is, when I saw "Orange Pet Man" in the paper, I immediatly pegged him for a goober, and then, sure enough, he turns out to be a classic Goober.
Is there something to that Phrenology stuff after all?

Stacy S.: I don't think that's a problem. As long as people use whichever "cannon" they want, as a guideline - it doesn't matter if the messages they receive are different.

Somewhat OT: is it Phrenology? - the discarded theory of facial and head structure?
Reason I ask is, when I saw "Orange Pet Man" in the paper, I immediatly pegged him for a goober, and then, sure enough, he turns out to be a classic Goober.
Is there something to that Phrenology stuff after all?

I KNEW this was coming, but ... AAaarrgghh!!!
http://www.flascience.org/wp/

As for the rest of your post - I didn’t understand what you said. LOL (not a scientist, remember!) “Quasi- Species Replicators”?

Put simply, a quasispecies is a large group or cloud of related genotypes that exist in an environment of high mutation rate, where a large fraction of offspring are expected to contain one or more mutations relative to the parent. This is in contrast to a species, which from an evolutionary perspective is a more-or-less stable single genotype, most of the offspring of which will be genetically accurate copies. It is useful mainly in providing a qualitative understanding of the evolutionary processes of self-replicating macromolecules such as RNA or DNA or simple asexual organisms such as bacteria or viruses (see also viral quasispecies), and is helpful in explaining something of the early stages of the origin of life. [My emphasis.]

Thanks Torbjörn ! I did come back!
FYI - I ordered a "Biology for Idiots" book ( on Stanton's suggestion)... it should be here in a couple of days! :-)

( That's not really the name-but it escapes me right now) :-)

FYI - I ordered a “Biology for Idiots” book

Henry J:

FYI - I ordered a “Biology for Idiots” book

A reference book written for anti-evolution activists? (Did I say that?) Henry

Oh Henry! You make me laugh! :-) Thank you!