Some good news from Florida

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2504/pandathumbla7.jpg

If you would like a good laugh (or are just interested) - the FLDOE has put the video of the meeting on their website : http://www.fldoe.org/meetings/2008_02_11/meetingArchive.asp

When teachers present evolution, should they present the only the evidence that supports the theory? Or, should they present both the evidence that supports the theory and that which challenges it?

PvM,

You probably know this, but to clarify it for the lurkers, the 2 statements you quoted are actually consistent. The first describes the "replacement scam" that started when IDers themselves came to grips with the fact that there was no science of ID to teach. And well after they were aware that there was no science in classic creationism, only thoroughly falsified accounts that contradicted each other anyway. But they figured that if unreasonable doubts of evolution were planted in students' minds, they'd infer their favorite fairy tales anyway.

Johnson's quote was just a more official way of acknowledging the replacement scam.

There really aren't any major holes in evolutionary theory. There are endless disputes on details, but that is true of any real science. Science progresses and expands with time. This is why we don't live in caves.

Evolution has been attacked relentlessly for 150 years. After 150 years of attacks, a mere 99% of relevant scientists accept the fact of evolution and the theory of how it occurs.

Evolutionary thought is the one unifying concept of biology and medicine and no one could dig it out with anything less than nukes without destroying both fields. This would only matter to people who eat and utilize modern medicine.

When the fundies say holes, if you ask them you get decades old fallacies about the second law of thermodynamics, abiogenesis, and "we aren't descended from monkeys", usually with a generous helping of bible verses.

raven: There really aren't any major holes in evolutionary theory. There are endless disputes on details, but that is true of any real science. Science progresses and expands with time. This is why we don't live in caves. Evolution has been attacked relentlessly for 150 years. After 150 years of attacks, a mere 99% of relevant scientists accept the fact of evolution and the theory of how it occurs. Evolutionary thought is the one unifying concept of biology and medicine and no one could dig it out with anything less than nukes without destroying both fields. This would only matter to people who eat and utilize modern medicine. When the fundies say holes, if you ask them you get decades old fallacies about the second law of thermodynamics, abiogenesis, and "we aren't descended from monkeys", usually with a generous helping of bible verses.

raven: "we aren't descended from monkeys",

Ravilyn Sanders:

raven: "we aren't descended from monkeys",

One small consolation. They seem to have gone from, "My grandpa was no monkey" to "My pet aint related to this orange". Is this progress or what?

I believe that the two can and do coexist why is that not a popular view? Why does it have to be one way or the other?

There really aren’t any major holes in evolutionary theory.

— raven

One small consolation. They seem to have gone from, “My grandpa was no monkey” to “My pet aint related to this orange”. Is this progress or what?

— Ravilyn Sanders

Stacy S.:

Ravilyn Sanders:

raven: "we aren't descended from monkeys",

One small consolation. They seem to have gone from, "My grandpa was no monkey" to "My pet aint related to this orange". Is this progress or what?

I think so LOL! The "Orange"guy can be found in Part 1 at 53 minutes.

Ryan: I believe that the two can and do coexist why is that not a popular view? Why does it have to be one way or the other?

Ok - here we go ... at 1 hour 52 minutes we see a guy saying that he has found scientific evidence for 'Creation" - liberal media disregarded him.

OK, quick poll.....

How many of the speakers started out with "I'm not much of a science guy, but..."

I am glad that there is good news on this issue which will directly affect my job as a teacher in Florida. I am somewhat skeptical of the Johnson quote; it just seems too perfect, almost like the quotes that antiscience people use that come from scientists taken out of context. I wouldn't expect him to say something like that. What is the source of that quote?

Ryan: I believe that the two can and do coexist why is that not a popular view? Why does it have to be one way or the other?

Gary F: I am somewhat skeptical of the Johnson quote; it just seems too perfect, almost like the quotes that antiscience people use that come from scientists taken out of context. I wouldn't expect him to say something like that. What is the source of that quote?

The thing to realize is, Johnson (1) is a lawyer, not a scientist, who (2) devoutly believes that science (properly done) will ratify his religious faith. In other words, it's not HIS job to do the science, that's up to the Dembskis and Behes and other qualified scientists. But since is faith can't possibly be wrong, it's just a matter of going into the lab and proving that goddidit. C'mon, you science guys, roll up your sleeves and get it on!

If Johnson had enough scientific savvy to grasp the notion of testability, he'd soon realize why his science guys aren't doing any science. At which point I imagine he'd get back with the program of SAYING it's science, which is how religious claims come true, and since that makes it true, we can preach it in science class, since it's science.

Ryan, if you are referring to religion and science co-existing peacefully, then it certainly is possible.

— J. L. Brown

Well, if there is any doubt about what "evidence" they are talking about, this article in the Florida Baptist Witness should dispel it:

www.floridabaptistwitness.com/8408.article

There are three quote mines, two of Stephen Jay Gould:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.14
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2

... and one of Karl Popper:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.17

There is Sir Fred Hoyle's chestnut about the impossibility of a 747 being assembled from a tornado passing through a junkyard, which totally misses the point of the process of evolution.

www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

A quotation from "Professor" Phillip Johnson is given (without mention that he is a lawyer, not a biologist) claiming that the question is not "whether the vast claims of Darwinian evolution conflict with Genesis but whether they conflict with the evidence of biology." Of course, as noted above, Johnson also admits that ID is scientifically vacuous.

The lifeless body of the DI's list of 700 "dissenters" from Darwin is dragged out. The Anthropic Cosmological Principal is given a whirl without any attempt to show how it relates to evolution. And, finally, an argumentum ad populum is presented in the form of a Zogby poll that claims that 71 percent of the public favors allowing teachers to acknowledge the scientific controversy over the origins of life.

But worst of all, this all comes from Robin Brown, a recently retired teacher from Polk County who taught for 31 years with the last 15 years being middle school science. Nice way to bring the validity of her students' diplomas into doubt.

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. I feel this to be true, I know this to be true. That's science, isn't it? :)

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/some-good-news-1.html#comments-open Some good news from Florida - The Panda's Thumb Gary F: I am glad that there is good news on this issue which will directly affect my job as a teacher in Florida. I am somewhat skeptical of the Johnson quote; it just seems too perfect, almost like the quotes that antiscience people use that come from scientists taken out of context. I wouldn't expect him to say something like that. What is the source of that quote?

But worst of all, this all comes from Robin Brown, a recently retired teacher from Polk County who taught for 31 years with the last 15 years being middle school science.

— John Pieret

Ravilyn Sanders:

raven: "we aren't descended from monkeys",

One small consolation. They seem to have gone from, "My grandpa was no monkey" to "My pet aint related to this orange". Is this progress or what?

In other words, it’s not HIS job to do the science, that’s up to the Dembskis and Behes and other qualified scientists.

— Flint

Dr. Debra Walker of the Monroe County School Board noted in an Orlando Sentinel article that those counties passing anti-evolution resolutions are the ones with low FCAT science scores.

Graph here; Data here; original FCAT data from the Florida Department of Education FCAT results.

Sorry, better graphics:
Graph

Data

Both from this post.

Thanks Cheryl! :-) Have you sent that to Brandon Haught? (Florida Citizens for Science)

(tinfoil hat)
See?! The Evil Darwinist Conspiracy has even infiltrated the FCAT design committee!!!
(/tinfoil hat)

Darn those science supporting counties for messing up the curve.

fnxtr: (tinfoil hat) See?! The Evil Darwinist Conspiracy has even infiltrated the FCAT design committee!!! (/tinfoil hat)

Stacy S.: Thanks Cheryl! :-) Have you sent that to Brandon Haught? (Florida Citizens for Science)

Polk County, where, as mentioned above, Robin Brown taught middle school science for 15 years, managed to avoid embarrassing itself with an anti-science resolution. But would anyone care to guess where it finished in the FCAT science scores? Well ...

5th grade 296 34%

8th grade 286 32%

11th grade 288 26%

That 11th grade score is particularly dismal. Doubtless Ms. Brown was not single-handedly responsible for shortchanging the children of Polk County ... but she helped.

Frank B --- That's beery good science!

:-)

RE: Ryan (comment 14307). The position you take, one that is also held by Ken Miller and the late Stephen Gould, has been referred to as NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria or simplistically "Science asks how, religion ask why." This has been addressed in some detail recently by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion." You can predict from the title that Dr. Dawkins does not believe that such concepts are valid. Regardless of how you take Dawkins' argument, it's a good read and I recommend it highly to anyone who wishes to explore this controversial area.

The only problem is that now they’re beginning to move on to arguments like “bananas are designed to be eaten: therefore GOD exists!”

IMO it would also be nice to add a statement about teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution theory.

ABC/Larry: As the saying goes, figures don't lie but liars figure. You Darwinists should get rid of this graph and table before you cause yourselves some major embarrassment.

This article suggests that the reason Brevard County is considered supportive of evolution is that the Board there "voted to strike any mention of intelligent design from texts."

only two counties have expressed support of evolution education, so that sample size is unavoidably limited at this point.

ABC/Larry is a notorious troll. It's perfectly safe to ignore him; most of us do.

Larry is a known TROLL and moron. Pay no attention to him.

The creationist coward hiding behind the username ABC/Larry said: "This graph is ridiculous. Note that the base of the graph is 270, greatly exaggerating the differences!

Lurkers,

Notice how it's always about "Darwinists" and strengths and weaknesses of "Darwinism." Never about strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary biology, and of course never about the strengths and weaknesses of all those mutually contradictory failed attempts at alternate theories.

ABC/Larry is one of those who refused to answer simple questions about what happened and when in his favorite alternate "theory." Of course not. Once they do that, any high school student can see that, no matter how weak they find "Darwinism" (even if they don't realize that it's just a caricature "designed" to make evolution look weak) they will find the alternatives far weaker. And further burdened by mutual contradictions.

Any student can look up the evidence for evolution in context, and infer whatever "weaknesses" he wants. He can even look up the real scientific controversies and, if his heart desires, even the misrepresentations that anti-evolution activists peddle as "critical analysis." Oh, and he can also look up the refutations of those misrepresentations that the activists don't dare demand be taught.

Creationists are very good at ignoring, like, facts and stuff. Ask a question requiring real evidence, and the larrys are silent. But of course, a live debate is no better, because the creationists pack the house with bused-in ignorami, gallop across dozens of dishonesties per minute, then declare victory when time expires.

And so here we have larry blathering on about the "weaknesses of Darwinism." Ask him about problems with evolutionary biology. Go ahead. Want to know what those "weaknesses" are? Just ask. Ask what his "theory" explains. Ask what its weaknesses are. Ask how it might be tested. Just ask. If you ask politely, larry might just vanish for good. We can always hope. Actual science affects larry types like wooden crosses affect vampires.

Maybe someone has already brought this up, but haven't the antiscience boards already violated the Establishment Clause? Regardless of whether or not the BOE listens to them, they've sent a clear message to their own teachers and students, and they've created an environment where students are unlikely to get the education they deserve.

I like that, Flint. There should be a SI unit called the Gish, which measures dishonesties per minute.

fnxtr, The 'Gish' would have to measure text, dishonesties per five lines of text. A creationist could achieve a low Gish Rating by rambling a lot.

To tabulate a Gish Rating, it should also take into account how many facts the creationist purposely omits, as well as any questions asked of the creationist that are ignored or are replied to with lies.

Larry: IMO it would also be nice to add a statement about teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution theory.

To tabulate a Gish Rating, it should also take into account how many facts the creationist purposely omits, as well as any questions asked of the creationist that are ignored or are replied to with lies.

ABC/Larry is one of those who refused to answer simple questions about what happened and when in his favorite alternate “theory.”

Jason Wise: Maybe someone has already brought this up, but haven't the antiscience boards already violated the Establishment Clause? Regardless of whether or not the BOE listens to them, they've sent a clear message to their own teachers and students, and they've created an environment where students are unlikely to get the education they deserve.

It feels like I'm late to the party, but I'll have a go...

Larry, I have a few questions for you:

(1) What, to your mind, is the scientific theory of ID?

(2) Do you agree with Michael Behe that the Earth is over 4 billion years old?

(3) Do you agree with Michael Behe that the evidence for universal common descent is overwhelming?

(4) Do you agree with Michael Behe that most biological change is the result of natural selection (he asserts simply that it cannot all be caused by natural selection)?

(5) Since you are now a critic of the loose use of statistics, please link to your critique of William Dembski's heinous abuses of statistical techniques. If you have not criticised Dembski for his abuse of statistics, please explain why you have started taking an interest in statistics only now.

And, perhaps more difficult:

(6) With reference only to data that have been published in peer-reviewed literature, please enumerate the weaknesses of "Darwinism". Please ensure that your definition of "Darwinism" is clear and unambiguous, and also that it is borne out by reference to reality.

Seems like science is not the only area where ignorance-is-bliss amongst the masses.

I'd like to suggest that readers take a glance at NYT's "Most Emailed" category for:

"Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?"

...at...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/books/14dumb.html?em&ex=1203224400&en=9813e31206335cfb&ei=5087%0A

...a snippet...

“I expect to get bashed,” said Ms. Jacoby, 62, either as an older person who upbraids the young for plummeting standards and values, or as a secularist whose defense of scientific rationalism is a way to disparage religion.

Science Nut, that's quite an interesting article.

It does seem to me that the USA has a larger-than typical proportion of people who are anti-knowledge. Although, that does not mean that there aren't similar instances in the UK. I can't recall the details, but there was recently a famous example of news presenters making light of their ignorance.

If the Gish is to be an SI unit, it has to be

dishonesties per second!

:-)

Mike Elzinga:

To tabulate a Gish Rating, it should also take into account how many facts the creationist purposely omits, as well as any questions asked of the creationist that are ignored or are replied to with lies.

And think of the dilemma this would present for Dembski. His filter would be required to find some intelligence in there somewhere even though there never is.

Methinks that sentence is wrong. Dembski is not a qualified scientist. He is not any kind of scientist.

It does seem to me that the USA has a larger-than typical proportion of people who are anti-knowledge. Although, that does not mean that there aren’t similar instances in the UK.

dishonesties

Stanton: When requests and demands are made for him to demonstrate this ability, he promptly packs up and flees for the next town.

Stanton: The problem with Mr Dembski's "Intelligent Filter" is two-fold. First, it's that he's taken the metaphorical/metaphysical equivalent of an empty cardboard tube and has made the claim that it can filter the metaphorical equivalents of gold and uranium out of saltwater, and into giftwrapped packages. When requests and demands are made for him to demonstrate this ability, he promptly packs up and flees for the next town.

Ravilyn Sanders:

Stanton: When requests and demands are made for him to demonstrate this ability, he promptly packs up and flees for the next town.

This is a complete mischaracterisation of Dembski. Most definitely he does not do that. In fact I wish he would do that. But instead, when requests and demands are made for him to demonstrate this ability, he simply declares that he has demonstrated everything demanded. He shares the loot with some of the shills and they confirm he had done so. Since noobs can't tell science from astrology, Demsbski does not have to skip town at all.

Stanton --- Because he is gishonest?

:-)

Kevin B: Dembski's filter is more like a Glomerular Filter, with much the same end product (ie, he's definitely taking the p---.) The difference is (as I've found out first-hand today) that not only can Glomerular Filtration be detected, there is a chromium radioisotope based test that can measure how fast the filter is going. Does Dembski have any estimates on how his Filter can explain things?

I do see the temptation to define the rate, but as gishonesties would be additive - produced by several creationists commenting on the same thread, for example - I think it is the cleaner definition.

Mike Elzinga: Where D is the Dembski threshold for detecting intelligence (a very big but finite number)

it follows that iD must be purely imaginary.

Volusia School Board Supports Teaching of Evolution

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Volusia School Board Supports Teaching of Evolution

These are some of the most enlightened comments on the situation I've read from any Florida country school board - wonderful! Thanks, Cheryl, for posting this!

Just what is the theory of evolution? The theory of evolution underlies the modern understanding of biology. ... The theory proposes that adaptations that make an animal better fitted to survive in its environment give that animal better odds of survival ("survival of the fittest"), and increase the chance of creating successive generations. Changes can sometimes be great enough to create a new species.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Volusia School Board Supports Teaching of Evolution

Changes can sometimes be great enough to create a new species

Too bad the enemy is also watching: Larry Fafarman has a mild comment already, along with the pseudoscientist “Biblical Scholar and Scientist Extraordinaire” C. David Parsons.

that would make the math COMPLEX!

From the article linked by Cheryl The theory proposes that adaptations that make an animal better fitted to survive in its environment give that animal better odds of survival (“survival of the fittest”), and increase the chance of creating successive generations. Changes can sometimes be great enough to create a new species.

Flint: Nigel:

Methinks that sentence is wrong. Dembski is not a qualified scientist. He is not any kind of scientist.

Context, context. Dembski is a scientist because Johnson SAYS he's a scientist. That makes him one, in creoland. And his religious orientation makes him a fully qualified scientist. In fact, it's the only qualification that really matters in Johnson's world. Saying that Dembski is a qualified scientist who has scientifically disproved evolution is worth at least a Gish and a half.

Hmm. I can’t remember where I read/heard this, but allegedly the amount of US citizens unable to place a random european nation could be roughly the same amount of europeans unable to place a random US state. Granted, nations should be slightly more important.

— Torbjörn Larsson OM

Kevin B:

Mike Elzinga: Where D is the Dembski threshold for detecting intelligence (a very big but finite number)

This would seem to work particularly since, if D is a real number, it follows that iD must be purely imaginary. ERROR: INVALID COMMENT ID

MememicBottleneck: From the article linked by Cheryl

Just what is the theory of evolution? The theory of evolution underlies the modern understanding of biology. ... The theory proposes that adaptations that make an animal better fitted to survive in its environment give that animal better odds of survival ("survival of the fittest"), and increase the chance of creating successive generations. Changes can sometimes be great enough to create a new species.

I'm no biologist, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the last sentence is one of the major reasons many people maintain a misunderstanding of evolution. It implies that a large change can occur suddenly. I have always been under the impression that speciation was an accumulation of many small changes over a long period of time.

Finally some good news from Florida.......LOL

I think I'll move to Volusia County!:-) !!!
http://www.beacononlinenews.com/dailyitem.php?itemnum=602

Nigel D:

Kevin B:

Mike Elzinga: Where D is the Dembski threshold for detecting intelligence (a very big but finite number)

This would seem to work particularly since, if D is a real number, it follows that iD must be purely imaginary. ERROR: INVALID COMMENT ID

ROFLMAO!!

Kevin B: You do sometimes have to wonder whether computers have developed intelligence, but haven't let on yet.... :)

HAL: "Well, certainly no one could have been unaware of the very strange stories floating around before we left. Rumors about something being dug up on the moon. I never gave these stories much credence. But particularly in view of some of the other things that have happened, I find them difficult to put out of my mind. For instance, the way all our preparations were kept under such tight security and the melodramatic touch of putting Dr.'s Hunter, Kimball, and Kaminsky aboard, already in hibernation after four months of separate training on their own."

Watching the board's introduction to the public comments. Troubling. The only thing being addresses is physical science, not a word about evolution, or biology for that matter. Jobs, and engineering is the practical emphasis of the politicians. The biology controversy is just an annoyance to them. When this happened in Ohio it was difficult to impossible to get the political bureaucrats to not compromise the biology education. They never did do the right thing. They still think their compromise was right. They finally only relented when their faces were collective stuck in the evidence that they would not win a court case. Take my word for it, the board doesn't care about evolution education. They'll do whatever they think will get "the crazy people" out of their way quickest. If they don't understand the threat of litigation then we have trouble.

Mike --- If you can influence the board, you might point out that an increasing number of jobs are biology related: biofuels and all that...

ABC/Larry:

Henry J: said,

it follows that iD must be purely imaginary.

But that would make the math COMPLEX!!!

Imaginary numbers are used in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics, so Darwinism could be viewed as perhaps an imaginary idea that is nonetheless useful in some areas of biology, like paleontology and cladistic taxonomy.

The debates over state evolution education standards are now probably moot because the controversy has become so big that it is virtually impossible to brainwash students into believing that Darwinism is the grand central unifying principle of biology.

ABC/Larry: Imaginary numbers are used in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics, so Darwinism could be viewed as perhaps an imaginary idea that is nonetheless useful in some areas of biology, like paleontology and cladistic taxonomy.

Thank you Kevin!

ABC/Larry said: The debates over state evolution education standards are now probably moot because the controversy has become so big that it is virtually impossible to brainwash students into believing that Darwinism is the grand central unifying principle of biology.

Volusia County School Board members are taking a stand firmly on the side of evolution in the debate over the Florida Department of Education's proposed science standards.

A poll of School Board members revealed discussions about Creationism or intelligent design might be allowed in a social studies, comparative religion or philosophy class, but those topics will not be taught in a science class.

She believes science should be taught in a science class and religion taught separately, "and not confuse the two." Conte added, "The last I knew, the Earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa."

"That's something that will always be up for discussion, but not in the science classroom."

She believes the theory of evolution "absolutely" should be taught.

who represents Southwest Volusia, said the State Board is talking science standards, not religion, and these science standards are created by experts in their fields. Smith said while she is comfortable with evolution being taught in the classroom, she knows some people hold deeply felt beliefs, and she hopes they will understand why the theory of evolution is being taught in the classroom. "I hope the State Board doesn't bend," Smith said.

School Board Member Stan Schmidt, who represents Southeast Volusia, was noncommittal. "The state's got to make their decision," he said, adding he will support whatever that decision is. As for Creationism or intelligent-design theories, Schmidt said, "I don't think you can call that science."

That is just the article author’s opinion. And it doesn’t mean that the board members are opposed to (1) calling evolution a “theory” or (2) teaching the scientific weaknesses of evolution.

— ABC/Larry

Map updated with Volusia

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/2594/pandathumben9.jpg

These are public schools. We teach science in them. Not religion.
Churches do not pay taxes to support public schools.
Many churches have their own private schools that do not have to adhere to State Standards.
We are not pushing state science standards into their private schools.
How is it that they feel they have the right to inject their religious ideologies (specifically and only Christian creationism) into public science classes?
And, WHY does the State Board of a PUBLIC school system (NOT funded by the churches) feel that they have to answer to or placate or be influenced by these religious organizations?
I don't expect an answer to these questions.
At some point though, we need to find a way to strengthen the separation of church and state. I see the Wedge strategy (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00102.htm) as a direct affront on democracy and religious freedom.
Florida's Science Standards are but one small fight in a much larger battle.

ABC/Larry:

Kevin B. said, The non-overlapping (orthogonal) resistive and reactive components might have something to say about NOMA, where the natural and supernatural components are also orthogonal. The difference is that in NOMA the orthogonal components do not interact, so applying the mathematics of complex numbers would have no physical meaning.

What? Anyway, my point was that sometimes ideas that don't appear to be true -- and that might not be true -- are useful in science and engineering. There is no tangible relationship between imaginary numbers and AC circuits & aerodynamics. And the fact that Darwinism is useful in biology does not necessarily mean that Darwinism is entirely true.

… which of course, makes one wonder how a mythical Scandanavian troglodyte with no science expertise, no credentials or training in science education, and no experience as a science teacher

What is your basis for saying that? I studied biology in high school. I did not study biology in college, but I did study physics, chemistry, engineering, and mathematics.

Many churches have their own private schools that do not have to adhere to State Standards.

— grafixer

We are not pushing state science standards into their private schools. How is it that they feel they have the right to inject their religious ideologies (specifically and only Christian creationism) into public science classes? And, WHY does the State Board of a PUBLIC school system (NOT funded by the churches) feel that they have to answer to or placate or be influenced by these religious organizations? I don’t expect an answer to these questions.

— grafixer

IMO both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution should be taught.

Richard Simons: ABC/Larry said

IMO both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution should be taught.

Please enlighten us as to what 'weaknesses' you see as being appropriate for teaching at the high school level. What other weaknesses do you perceive and how do any alternatives provide a better explanation?

Stacy S.:

Richard Simons: ABC/Larry said

IMO both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution should be taught.

Please enlighten us as to what 'weaknesses' you see as being appropriate for teaching at the high school level. What other weaknesses do you perceive and how do any alternatives provide a better explanation?

Larry - you didn't answer Richards' question

ABC/Larry said:

Artfulskeptic said, And, if not evolution, what do you propose is the grand central unifying principle of biology?

Why does biology need such a principle?

And how can evolution possibly be such a principle when I don’t even remember studying evolution in high school biology?

ABC/Larry: It is possible to perceive the behavior of the simplest AC circuits. For example, the buildup of a charge on the plates of a capacitor creates a counter-voltage that reduces current flow, so in a purely capacitive AC circuit, the current is going to peak when the voltage across the capacitor is zero and is going to be zero when the voltage across the capacitor peaks -- see http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/AC.html#capacitors

But the correctness of making an RLC circuit impedance vector by adding a real-number pure-resistance vector and an imaginary-number reactance vector that are at right angles with each other is impossible to perceive -- this correctness can only be derived mathematically.

There is also the Joukowski transformation of conformal mapping, where the aerodynamics of a rotating cylinder is used to solve the aerodynamics of fixed-wing airfoils -- see http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/map.html

So the bottom line is that scientists can use Darwinism even if they view it as kind of a hokey idea that has no connection to reality.

ABC/Larry said: Why does biology need such a principle?

And how can evolution possibly be such a principle when I don’t even remember studying evolution in high school biology?

That's may not be the most foolish assertion I've ever heard, but it's certainly in the top ten. Come to think of it, it does pretty well sum up the whole ID movement. i.e. ABC/Larry didn't learn it in high school, therefore it doesn't exist.

I love reading this blog - it's like a good long book :-)

Anyway, cross your fingers for tomorrow's vote by the FL BoE!! Maybe I'll have some "Good news from Florida" to report!!

Stacy S.: I love reading this blog - it's like a good long book :-) Anyway, cross your fingers for tomorrow's vote by the FL BoE!! Maybe I'll have some "Good news from Florida" to report!!

Stand Strong On Science Standards To Make Florida Kids Competitive

The Tampa Tribune

Published: February 19, 2008

Science classes in Florida public schools are among the weakest in the nation, despite taxpayer-funded initiatives to make the state a major hub for biotech and bioscience.

Two years ago, the prestigious Fordham Institute gave Florida a big, fat "F" for its lousy science curriculum. And managers in high-tech fields continue to complain about the caliber of the workforce produced by our schools.

You would think that as the Florida Board of Education prepares today to discuss new science standards, improving students' mastery of science would be foremost in people's mind.

But all the discussion is focused on "intelligent design," a belief that a higher being must be involved in the universe since science cannot explain everything. At least nine Florida school boards have passed resolutions opposing the much-improved science standards because they don't include the teaching of intelligent design, another term for creationism.

Instead, the state's proposed standards focus on evolution, as they should. Evolution is a scientific theory built on data, not faith, and it has withstood the test of time.

No wonder our educational system is mediocre at best. Florida can't keep its eye on the ball.

In making its decision today, the board of education should remember its core purpose - to ensure a quality public education for Florida's children, not to kowtow to people who want religious faith taught as fact in science class.

The proposed science standards were drafted and reviewed by leading scientific minds and top-level science teachers. They offer a better organized, more rigorous schedule for laying out the big ideas of science, starting with the five senses in kindergarten, and ending with ecology, cell function, physics, anatomy and astronomy in high school.

With Florida graduates trailing the nation in scientific achievement, the Board of Education should stand strong today and create a rigorous, world-class science curriculum.

Anything less would be academic de-evolution.

ABC/Larry:

Kevin B said, Electrical engineers need to do vector calculations when they work on AC circuits. Somewhere along the line one of them spotted that if they used complex numbers rather than pure Cartesian co-ordinates, the explicit presence of the “i” (or rather “j”) in the calculation would mean that it was less easy for them to make silly mistakes.

Wrong. It was not a case where electrical engineers were already using Cartesian-plane vectors for analyzing AC circuits and then discovering that they could use complex-plane vectors -- they must use complex-plane vectors for the computations to work.

(Most) electrical engineers are are under no illusion about the reality of the reactive component of voltage and current.

It is possible to perceive the behavior of the simplest AC circuits. For example, the buildup of a charge on the plates of a capacitor creates a counter-voltage that reduces current flow, so in a purely capacitive AC circuit, the current is going to peak when the voltage across the capacitor is zero and is going to be zero when the voltage across the capacitor peaks -- see http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/AC.html#capacitors But the correctness of making an RLC circuit impedance vector by adding a real-number pure-resistance vector and an imaginary-number reactance vector that are at right angles with each other is impossible to perceive -- this correctness can only be derived mathematically.

So the bottom line is that scientists can use Darwinism even if they view it as kind of a hokey idea that has no connection to reality.

how a mythical Scandanavian troglodyte with no science expertise, no credentials or training in science education, and no experience as a science teacher has suddenly become an expert on K12 science curriculum.

What is your basis for saying that? I studied biology in high school. I did not study biology in college, but I did study physics, chemistry, engineering, and mathematics.

Thanks everyone! Live Blogging now - http://www.flascience.org/wp/

… and he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, too. Still no evidence of professional science credentials, science education training or experience.

The decision is coming SOON!

Larry belongs in a mental institution, not on Panda's Thumb clogging threads with his idiocy. Why is this allowed to go on? Shall we bring in the Special Olympics boxing champ and wail on him as well?

Sadly, every study I have read concludes that education does not cure creationism.

— Flint

Larry belongs in a mental institution, not on Panda’s Thumb clogging threads with his idiocy. Why is this allowed to go on? Shall we bring in the Special Olympics boxing champ and wail on him as well?

My point was that it is not apparent that it is correct to form an impedance vector by adding orthogonal resistive and reactive vectors in the complex plane – the correctness must be shown mathematically.

The EE’s did not “choose” the complex number form – they must use it in AC circuit analysis.

The supreme hubris of creationists and Intelligent Design proponents never cease to amaze and horrify (mostly horrify) me.

The fact that Larry admits that the extent of his education on Biology (and Evolution) was one year in high school, taught by what appears to be an extraordinarily incompetent Biology teacher, negates the legitimacy of his alleged criticisms of Evolutionary Biology, if only because one of the first things a high school student should have learned in high school Biology is that "Evolutionary Biology" is not called "Darwinism" in the 20th or 21st centuries.

Larry does not care to realize that "criticism" in the scientific arena is meant to do one of two things: 1) point out flaws in a scientific hypothesis SO THAT THEY CAN BE CORRECTED, or 2) point out flaws in a scientific hypothesis SO IT CAN BE REPLACED WITH A NEWER HYPOTHESIS THAT ACTUALLY WORKS

Larry also does not care to realize that in order to make a legitimate, productive critique, a critic must actually understand the topic he/she/it is criticizing in the first place. Given as how Larry refuses to realize that "descent with modification," his eloquence is nothing more than a mask for his intellectual poverty on the subject of Biology.

Criticism for the sake of casting unreasonable doubt, which is what all of the criticisms produced by creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are, is considered both unforgivably rude and extraordinarily unproductive by actual, legitimate scientists and scientific scholars.

ABC/Larry: The EE's did not "choose" the complex number form -- they must use it in AC circuit analysis.

I think ABC/Larry must believe, like most creationists, that a scientific theory means “crap that we make up.”

— MattusMaximus (aka Matthew Lowry)

MattusMaximus (aka Matthew Lowry): I think ABC/Larry must believe, like most creationists, that a scientific theory means "crap that we make up."

...is lower by almost half for college grads, and by some 90% for scientists, compared to the general public. So education, and particularly science education, certainly helps.

The fact remains that creationists entering college remain creationists upon graduation, even in biology.

— Flint

What is the matter with you people that I need to explain such simple ideas over and over again. You are not interested in what I have to say – you are just interested in finding ways to misinterpret what I say so that you can call me stupid and ignorant.

ABC/Larry:

MattusMaximus (aka Matthew Lowry):

ABC/Larry: The EE's did not "choose" the complex number form -- they must use it in AC circuit analysis.

Wrong. It is one way, among many, to analyze AC circuits; just like you can analyze Maxwell's equations and electromagnetism in a variety of mathematical forms.

I was obviously referring to the use of vectors in AC circuit analysis -- if you use vectors, they must be in the complex plane and not the Cartesian plane. Duh. What is the matter with you people that I need to explain such simple ideas over and over again. You are not interested in what I have to say -- you are just interested in finding ways to misinterpret what I say so that you can call me stupid and ignorant.

Anyway, my point was that sometimes ideas that don’t appear to be true – and that might not be true – are useful in science and engineering. There is no tangible relationship between imaginary numbers and AC circuits & aerodynamics. And the fact that Darwinism is useful in biology does not necessarily mean that Darwinism is entirely true.

Scientific criticisms of Darwinism are contained in a number of books, e.g., The Edge of Evolution, The Design of Life, Icons of Evolution and the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design

— ABC/Larry

Why should I hang around here to answer your off-topic questions? Am I asking you off-topic questions, like asking you to explain Darwinism?

— The banned commenter Larry Fafarman, posting under a sock-puppet to transparently avoid a two-year-old ban

Before the term “scientific theory” was added to the Florida standards, those standards not only assumed that plausible scientific criticisms of Darwinism do not exist now, but assumed that no plausible scientific criticisms of Darwinism would ever be found in the future.

Scientific criticisms of Darwinism are contained in a number of books, e.g., The Edge of Evolution, The Design of Life, Icons of Evolution, and the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

My favorite criticism of Darwinism is one I practically never see unless I raise it myself – the difficulties of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different organisms.

My favorite criticism of Darwinism is one I practically never see unless I raise it myself – the difficulties of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different organisms.

Richard Simons:

My favorite criticism of Darwinism is one I practically never see unless I raise it myself – the difficulties of co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different organisms.

What's so difficult about it? I composed a response but you are correct, this is getting off topic for this post. I'll limit myself to suggesting that perhaps the reason you seldom see this raised is because most people have no difficulty with it.

And of course, Larry refuses to explain why anyone should regard any of his alleged criticisms of "Darwinism" seriously, especially since his extent of Biology was with an extraordinarily incompetent high school teacher who a) failed miserably to explain that "Darwinism" is not the legitimate term for Evolutionary Biology, especially as it is known in the 20th and 21st centuries, and b), failed catastrophically to explain that "descent with modification" is the unifying principle in Modern Biology (and in Agriculture and Medicine).

Larry has done us a favor by demonstrating that a) people who have had only a year of high school level biology, such as himself, are incapable of making legitimate criticisms of Evolutionary Biology

ABC/Larry:

Stanton: Larry has done us a favor by demonstrating that a) people who have had only a year of high school level biology, such as himself, are incapable of making legitimate criticisms of Evolutionary Biology,

I had two years of high school biology, counting one year of human physiology. I also had a year of high school chemistry. I was a science major in high school. In college I majored in mechanical engineering. I had a year of college chemistry and a year of college physics, and a lot of the engineering was science-related. Ed Brayton, a PT blogger, is not even a college graduate. Stanton, you are just a big bag of hot air -- you did not even make any attempt to counter my arguments.

Thanks for moving that arrogant asshat to The Bathroom Wall. He really is a tiresome little prig, isn't he?

Wolfhound: Thanks for moving that arrogant asshat to The Bathroom Wall. He really is a tiresome little prig, isn't he?

PvM, you pathetic dunghill, you are deleting my comments again. I told you that if you don't like the name I am using, ABC/Larry, then tell me what name you want me to use and I will use it.

Have you ever considered the possibility that someday you may need some credibility that you won't have because of your history of arbitrarily censoring comments?

I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me.

-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

ABC/Larry,

Did you post answers to my "off-topic" questions on the Bathroom Wall? I checked once a few weeks ago but couldn't find any.

Lurkers: I put "off-topic" in quotes because PT moderaters apparently do not mind questions that merely ask anti-evolutionists which of the mutually contradictory anti-evolution positions they favor. That can only help any discussion, which is why it would be off-topic on a "don't ask, don't tell" ID forum.

Larry, your comments aren't being "arbitrarily censored". They're being deleted for a specific, stated reason: They're your comments. You're banned from the site because of a clear, persistent history of breaking site rules. What is arbitrary about that? Nothing. You're not being asked to like it, and you're not being asked to agree with it. You're just being asked to go away. Go away.

ABC/Larry: I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

ABC/Larry: PvM, you pathetic dunghill, you are deleting my comments again. I told you that if you don't like the name I am using, ABC/Larry, then tell me what name you want me to use and I will use it. Have you ever considered the possibility that someday you may need some credibility that you won't have because of your history of arbitrarily censoring comments? I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me. -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Larry Whined: I told you that if you don’t like the name I am using, ABC/Larry, then tell me what name you want me to use and I will use it.

Have you ever considered the possibility that someday you may need some credibility that you won’t have because of your history of arbitrarily censoring comments?

Science Avenger:

ABC/Larry: Have you ever considered the possibility that someday you may need some credibility that you won’t have because of your history of arbitrarily censoring comments?

What delusions of grandure to think this site's treatment of you would have any effect on its credibility one way or another. You really don't understand how insignificant you are, do you?

Stanton --- or the next one.

Newb question: where is the Bathroom Wall?

Forum (link on page header) > After the Bar Closes > The Bathroom Wall