Florida Legislators Oppose Teaching Science in School, But Lose
Rep. Marti Coley, future House Speaker Dean Cannon and state Sen. Stephen Wise, all Republicans, say they're considering filing legislation this spring that would specifically call evolution a ''theory'' if the state Board of Education approves the proposed science standards Feb. 19 as currently written. ...''It's technically a theory. Let's present it for what it is'' Coley told The Miami Herald on Tuesday. ...
Coley, who believes in intelligent design, said she also thinks it is too religious to teach in science classes. But she's ready to use the power of the Legislature -- which can override the Board of Education -- to insert the word ''theory'' into the standards.
Source: Miami Herald
It's important to understand that the new standards which have been adopted for Florida schools require, for the first time in the state's history, science teachers to teach about evolution and natural selection. This is not to say that no student in Florida has ever learned about these subjects, but it's clearly not been expected — though it should have been. Not learning about evolution in biology classes is like not learning about Plate Tectonics or Relativity... or even about the Germ Theory of Disease.
Fortunately for students in Florida, opponents of science lost in a narrow 4-3 vote on the new standards. Evolution will now be taught in depth as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology [which] is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." As a concession to religious believers who deny modern biology, evolution is described as a "scientific theory." This effort to undermine evolution is itself undermined because in addition to evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics, cells, atoms, and electromagnetism are all also described as scientific theories.
Of course, everything in science is a "theory" because science uses that term differently from how it's used in vernacular. Creationists deliberately play upon this ambiguity because they know that calling evolution a "theory" will suggest that there is something uncertain about it:
Coley's proposal concerns backers of mainstream science because they fear the word ''theory'' could be easily manipulated to cast doubt on evolution, a pillar of biology. In common usage, a theory is just a guess. In scientific terms, a theory -- like gravity or quantum mechanics -- is a testable explanation of a phenomenon based on facts. ''If you use the word theory to imply that scientists think evolution is just a hypothesis and is not real, that gives an incorrect impression,'' said Prof. Joseph Travis, the dean of Florida State University's Arts and Sciences College, who reviewed the state's science standards. ...
Travis, the FSU professor, said teaching evolution is key because it underpins the biological study of everything from dinosaurs to diseases. He also wondered why the critics aren't pushing to have the word ''theory'' precede mentions of gravity in the standards.
Asked if it should be called the ''Theory of Gravity'' in the standards, Coley said: ``Sure.'' But, she said, people aren't calling her about gravity. ''I have been overwhelmed with the response from constituents where they're not asking for anything else to be taught,'' she said. 'It's not like they're asking, `Oh please, teach intelligent design or creationism,' or anything like that. They're just saying put the word theory in there because that's what it is.''
So it sounds like Marti Coley would be willing to force the schools to teach gravity as a "theory" if voters put pressure on her. Why is anyone putting pressure on her to do this with evolution? There is just one answer: religion. Or, to be more specific, the answer is Christianity. People oppose the teaching of evolution but not gravity or the germ theory of disease because they believe it contradicts their Christian beliefs — beliefs created thousands of years ago by scientifically ignorant priests and farmers in the Middle East.
So certain state legislators in Florida wanted to give students the wrong impression about evolution in comparison to other aspects of science because of the unscientific, religious beliefs of people who lived and died thousands of years ago. Where's the sense in that? Obviously there is no sense in that whatsoever — but it's nevertheless what passes for "normal" politics and religion in the United States of America in the 21st century. If there were a god, I'd seriously consider asking it to have pity on us.
Comments
Why do Christians hate science?
I actually wish they would insert theory in front of all the theories, so that students would have a clearer grasp of the term “theory” as it applies to the scientific view of existent items.
I was raised in FL, and now live in TX. I wonder if ignorance is just following me like a wake in my travels?
When I was in high school, they taught scientific method. It might not have been as indepth as it could have been. But I recall that observation was one of the initial parts, then hypothesis, and then testing and repeat testing (and scrutiny of the testing). Finally it becomes a theory somewhere further down that line. Mainly it has to make sense in reality BUT ALSO have good predictability/testability. And this is what separates it (for the most part) from religious claims.
I’d like kids to grasp this.
This is the latest in attempt in a relatively recent string of attempts on the part of creationists and intelligent designers proponents (mostly, if not all, Christians) to try and put evolutionary science in its “place” in the school system. They keep losing and keep trying, as these incidents pop up from State to State. Coley says she is doing this because her constituents are asking her to. If her constituents were asking her to have a prayer everyday to Scooby Doo, would she fight for it? She wants it herself, it has nothing to do with her constituents. And I doubt she could even produce an authentic list of any magnitude whatever to back her claim.
Excuse my typos. I was too quick on the trigger.
Christians don’t hate science. That would be like me saying Atheists are ignornant. Obviously, not all Atheists are ignorant, some make an informed decision on what they believe. Not all Christian hate science. As a matter of fact, some Christians like science very much and can even match up science with the Bible.
I think Mr. Cline should probably learn more about Christianity before he starts spewing ignorant opinions around. There would be nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory rather than a scientific fact. All that would mean is the students could take it or leave it. Just like Christianity. You can take it or leave it. No one denies gravity because obviously there is proof. With matters like God and evolution its a little more difficult.
You can say that evolution is a fact but its still just an opinion, a theory. The same with Christianity, I could say it was a fact but in reality it’s just a theory that may or may not be a fact. It is only my opinion that it is a fact. But my one opinion doesn’t make it so in the eyes of the world. And thankfully, neither does yours.
Feel free to support your accusations by pointing to exactly what opinions you think are “ignorant” and what you think I need to learn about Christianity.
Yes, there would: evolution is both.
You mean, like Plate Tectonics and the Germ Theory of Disease?
The proof of evolution is just as strong; unfortunately, the need for denial among so many Christians is even stronger.
That’s a falsehood. You can’t claim that “Christians don’t hate science” and then proceed to so misrepresent the basics of science like this.
In the scientific sense, Christianity is not a theory.
“No one denies gravity because obviously there is proof. With matters like God and evolution its a little more difficult.”
Just because YOU are unaware of the evidence for evolution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist! Who do you think you are? An omniscient being? Do you think you were born with genetic knowledge of biology?
Different processes leave different traces. If living organisms had been created a la Creationism, things would not look like they do! Just like a man who got shot in the head doesn’t look like one who got run over by a car. Just like a coroner can tell how a man died, biologists can tell how organisms came to be.
Robert M.
Taleana Ross
Evolution is an opinion? Do you have any children? If so, do they look exactly like you, or exactly like your spouse, or do they share some traits of both you and your spouse? If you have no children then you can observe other family’s children. I think you will see traits of both parents in the children. If this is not observable evolution, then what is your explanation for it?
Also, I know a man who is a dairy farmer who denies the fact of evolution. I asked, do you use selective breeding to improve your herd? He said, Absolutely!!!
Looks like Taleana Ross was just another drive-by. Wonder why the science-hating Christians never stick around to defend their droppings.
Paul, wasn’t there a post by Austin or a link posted by someone in the comments section about how these Christians have a planned strategy to do these “post-and-run” messages? On that Barack Obama Pledge-of-Allegiance thread (which is about to moved to the archives) we had someone named Karen make a ridiculous post then get blasted but she never replied to anyone.
Yet another who didn’t understand the term “theory” in the scientific sense.
DeeGee,
Yes, there has been discussion of post-and-run on this blog. That’s what inspired my earlier post.
pb
No one denies gravity because obviously there is proof. With matters like God and evolution its a little more difficult.
You are confusing the theory of gravity with the fact of gravity. The fact of gravity is that objects with mass are attracted to each other, which anyone can see. The theory of gravity explains how this happens using observational evidence. The currently accepted theory of gravitation is general relativity, which says that objects warp the physical space they occupy. This is a very good theory that has been tested countless times and is even used to maintain the proper time correction on our GPS satellites. However, it is not without it’s problems. The mathematics break down on the small scales of the subatomic world, where any fully comprehensive theory of gravitation should have no problems.
The fact of evolution is that species change over time through successive generations. This is easily observed by everyone. The theory of evolution is the explanation for these changes, which is currently a combination of a number of different theories, most notably gene theory and natural selection. There are no outstanding major issues in evolutionary theory, unlike gravity. Biologists have unified on the modern theory of evolution like scientists in no other field. Quite simply, if you are going to call anything “just a theory,” it should be gravity, not evolution.
If evolution is just a”theory”. Then it’s safe to say that the Bible is just a “story.”
Evolution can and has been proven,on many occasions.
Can the same be said about creation?
Can the same be said about creation?
Well, yeah. It says so right here.
I teach in Tennessee and the last time I said anything about the origins of life in Africa, some kid said, “I didn’t come from no n***er”. I explained the difference between spirituality and science but I was sure I had no takers. Could someone PLEASE suggest a book that REALLY dumbs down evolution to the level of christians’ understanding?
Mr. Cline being an atheist has a biased view of the issue and it shows quite clearly in his reporting.
Science does well when it observes, researches, falsifies, etc. When viewed purely on science evidence, the whole theory of evolution is probable, and a scientific fact. But when looked in respect to the millions that have a daily commune with God, it becomes less certain.
When taking what is natural and not allowing for other possibilities, you chance erring in your conclusions. You cannot deny both sets of evidences. If so, then you must be willing to explain satisfactorily, through science only, our very existence. While evolution does not address origin of the universe. It has it’s underpinnings in it. It supposes, by working backwards, that we originated from a single primitive organism which then changed/reproduced, etc. Still this organism must hjave come from somewhere and if it was ultimately a cognizant God, then this deity’s will must be considered in any explanation (something that science doesn’t do)
Since there is much unexplained yet, I understand the natural tendency to project beyond what is known while more pieces of the puzzle are filled in. There is also much debate in the specific areas of evolution (as expected) within the scientific community, for there to be a true conscensus for all the different parts of the theory. There are also may gaps yet to be filled in.
In closing, I would like to say that I agree with the Florida decision, not because evolution hasn’t been scientifically demonstrated, but because it brings balance to an issue being brought to a head a bit before by those who have politicized evolution without explaining our origin.
On what other basis should science be evaluated?
This is like saying that the Germ Theory of Disease or Plate Tectonics is “less certain” when “looked in respect to the millions that have a daily commune with God.” If people who “commune with God” are unable to accept the facts of reality, that’s their problem and to their detriment, but it should have no bearing on what is taught in science class.
There are no scientific alternatives to evolution.
The only “evidence” that is relevant in a science class is scientific evidence.
“In closing, I would like to say that I agree with the Florida decision, not because evolution hasn’t been scientifically demonstrated, but because it brings balance to an issue being brought to a head a bit before by those who have politicized evolution without explaining our origin.”
Such a discussion would be appropriate in a comparative religions or philosophy class, but not in a science class.
Here’s a difference we should keep in mind as we discuss creationism and evolutionism: Evolution is useful, we use it all the time to treat, cure and prevent diseases. Creationism in that regard is utterly useless. This difference is because evolution is based on science.
Science: It works, bitches!
http://xkcd.com/54/
The still small voice is not a theologian. It is indifferent to evolution or creationism.
“When taking what is natural and not allowing for other possibilities, you chance erring in your conclusions. You cannot deny both sets of evidences.”
“Possibilities” are not “evidences.” Why can’t you Christians learn to think and write correctly? In all of these like minded postings I have never seen a logically coherent and evidence based rebuttal to any of Austin’s arguments.
I think courage is the highest moral value and in all of this godly huffing and puffing I see none of it.
GROW AND AND BECOME MATURE!!!!!
“There would be nothing wrong with teaching evolution as a theory rather than a scientific fact.”
Your problem is in not understanding what theory means in scientific terms.
Part of reason people find it easy to reject evolution is that scientists refer to it as a “theory”. In everyday English, a theory is something that you’re not really sure of, but think might be true. In science, a theory is a body of thought. So the different definitions are causing the general public to doubt something that scientists consider a fact. Something you may want to consider is that evolution itself is subject to evolution. It appears that natural evolution ( biological ) seems to have been overcome by consciously controlled evolution( tecnology ), but it continues nonetheless. To think that the human is the end product of something that continues regardless of our vanity is pretty narrow minded. Why would anybody think it’s stopped here? If you consider the spark of creation, call it the Big Bang, or God if you like, begat physics, which begat chemistry, with begat biology, which begat technology, then you can look at the non-stop evolution of everything with an open mind. Today we have genetic engineering, and AI, and it won’t stop because we simply don’t believe it. Evolution doesn’t care whether you believe it or not.
There’s always the problem of infinite regression. If God created everything, then who or what created God? Another God? and who created that God? How many Gods are involved in this?
MAYBE APES DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE THEY NEVER EVOLVED.
And with one fell swoop, FRED arrives and puts all arguments to rest.