Academic Freedom | Author Related | Creation and Evolution | Education | Education Policy | Energion.com | Science Education
Teaching Evolution in Florida
Brandon Haught of Florida Citizens for Science has started a series of posts on the history of the creation-evolution controversy here in Florida.
In the new year I intend to spend a bit more time on Florida issues and even on county issues (Escambia County in northwest Florida), so you can watch for (and possibly ignore if you’re not from these parts) posts with those tags.
I expect there to be bills on this, probably falsely called academic freedom bills, introduced into the next legislative sessions, and I will comment on them and track them here on this blog.
It’s interesting to note how advocates of creationism in the schools have gone from bills forbidding that evolution be taught to “academic freedom” bills. Evolving strategy, eh?
Evolving strategy, eh?
It’s also perfectly legal.
Well, no, not so much. Thus far the courts have struck all such attempts down.
But what’s even more important, in my view, is the really dumb side-effects that would be generated by these so-called “academic freedom” bills. They leave the local school boards to fight it out in the courts, since there is no effective guidance at all.
Well, no, not so much. Thus far the courts have struck all such attempts down.
You’re a newbie…
The Dover court struck down an attempt to introduce the Dover school board’s version of ID into the classroom, which is not the same thing as the academic freedom bill that was *legally* passed and made into law by Louisiana with a bi-partisan vote of 94-3 in the house, and 35-0 in the senate.
Florida was extremely close to doing the same thing, so how can you even be sure that Brandon really is on the side of science if you don’t even know what you’re talking about?
He’s not.
You know, it’s not only ignorant but arrogant and stupid to show up somewhere making unsupported claims. You could try to provide some sort of support for your statements, but you don’t.
I am well aware of the nature of the so-called academic freedom bills, both the one passed in Louisiana and those that failed in Florida. That’s because I read them as they were introduced, followed them through committee, and rejoiced as they failed, even though it was a close run thing.
Those bills are poorly written, bad policy, and they are deceitfully named. I wrote on them previously on this blog can search back for “Florida science standards” and get a number of posts in which I discussed those bills.
The problem for creationists is simply this: They seem to think that if they rename things the courts will consider it something different. Courts are generally brighter than that. They will quite likely find that these “academic freedom” bills are simply a new means of trying to introduce religious ideas into the science classroom.
The problem for creationists is that there is a complete lack of scientific data that supports their position, which means that everything they produce as classroom content winds up pointing back to religion.
Okay, Genius,
The problem for creationists is simply this: They seem to think that if they rename things the courts will consider it something different. Courts are generally brighter than that. They will quite likely find that these academic freedom bills are simply a new means of trying to introduce religious ideas into the science classroom.
No, that’s false, BOTH the florida and the Louisiana bills are/were written to specifically prohibit religion, creationism, creation science, and ID, so you’re just simply full of crap.
How’s that?
Not to mention the OTHER separation laws, any teacher who tries to teach creationism will put themselves and possibly their school in legal jeopardy and NOBODY has done this yet, so prove your lame assertions or shut up.
The problem for creationists is that there is a complete lack of scientific data that supports their position, which means that everything they produce as classroom content winds up pointing back to religion.
No, that’s false, but you ideologically motivated antifanatics commonly misinterpret and deny the evidence, rather than to look at it scientifically.
You still wouldn’t find god, but you would find that it is possible that we are not here by accident, for natural reasons.
Oh me, oh my, we have been visited by a reader of the creationist joke book.
Well, your second paragraph really provides the answer, though you fail to see it.
The law intentionally puts the teachers in that position, and takes the heat off the legislators. The only thing the teachers have to present is religious and will get them in trouble, or their school boards, should those boards be stupid enough to support them.
So the legislatures get to pretend they are just favoring academic freedom, when in fact they have simply punted the ball to the local school people.
If there is actual evidence that is purely scientific, there is no value in the law, as any scientific evidence can already be legally presented. If the evidence presented is religious in nature, then the school boards or teachers will wind up in court again.
Such courage on the part of the legislators!
Oh me, oh my, we have been visited by a reader of the creationist joke book.
No, I am an atheist, and you still haven’t proven how it is going these laws enable creationists to teach religion in school.
Gee, you know what else, Texas and other states have had similar bills in place for quite a while now, yet they haven’t had one court case to date.
Can you provide one, or are you simply lying?
Still can’t provide a case, huh?
Maybe one from Louisiana?
Anywhere?
That’s what I thought… YOU ARE A LIAR FOR THE LIBERAL AGENDA.
Strong atheist, Leonard Susskind very clearly expressed rationale for my last statement in his interview with New Scientist concerning his recent book, The Cosmic Landscape: String theory and the illusion of intelligent design.
Amanda Gefter of New Scientist asked him:
If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
[The “Landscape” is Lenny’s highly speculative string-theory version of the unobservable and untestable multiverse. Without a proven final theory, it is no better than hype, in other words.]
Leonard Susskind:
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.
You have made statements that indicate that you only believe that IDist have no evidence, but I could put Lenny on the witness stand and make him prove that you are the one who is full of crap assuming that you you continue to maintain your posturing that IDists have no points… misinterpreted though they many be… like Georges Lemaître.
Ready to be honest?
I didn’ think so…
About what? I’ll honestly say that your quote is not evidence of much of anything except that a scientist is trying to argue in favor of his theory with a “if you don’t accept my theory you’re stuck with [insert unacceptable alternative here].” Of course it’s also possible you’ve misquoted or quoted out of context. I haven’t read that actual book.
In terms of scientific evidence, the ID crowd has empty pockets. You have yet to present any.
So, I put Lenny on the witness stand, and force him to admit that IDists have a case based on the evidence that he is trying to explain away with his multiverse theory and you see it as if you dont accept my theory youre stuck with [insert unacceptable alternative here].
That figures.
Well, Lenny isn’t the only one, but physicists aren’t as clever about hiding their politics:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator/article_view?searchterm=Intelligent%20creator&=&b_start:int=0
Also, the following link is to a very incomplete list of valid scientific reasons that I started on why Charlie Crist should sign evolution bills that cross his desk, which I will take up again when the fun starts again here at home in Florida. I also sent a copy to Bobby Jindal and I hope that I had an effect!:
Start at the bottom to find reason number 1:
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?plckPersonaPage=PersonaBlog&plckUserId=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf&U=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf&plckScript=personaScript&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckElementId=personaDest&category=PluckPersona&sid=sitelife.tallahassee.com
I’m going to begin ignoring you. I and many others have repeatedly answered your points–I didn’t just start posting on this yesterday.
Of course, you have already begun posturing about how I have to respond to you on every point, but I have already discovered you are empty handed, ignorant, and as arrogant as you are ignorant.
As one last note to all, let me suggest that island, and any other interested readers, go comment on the material that Brandon is posting on the Florida Citizens for Science blog.
I find it quite interesting that island came here to post comments, rather than doing so there. Perhaps he hopes to avoid scrutiny in a larger market?
What an airhead. I have posted on Brandon’s blog numerous times, and everyone reading this should pay close attention to the fact that Henry can’t refute my points, so he “begins to ignore them” with lame rationale about how they’ve already been refuted.
LOL!!!
Hi Henry,
How are you? I just found your blog and thought I’d drop in with a little information you may not have. I have been working for over 13 years (with mostly the webpage I linked to) debating wherever I can find the subject being discussed.
In 1995, I had an epiphany of sorts and discovered a new way to view the seven race theory of evolution. You can read about it on my webpage. I just thought you might like to see another author’s point of view and so I am linking to an article that provides us with a very neat tabulation and diagram showing how 12 categories of evolutionary thinking exist and where they fall within the range of extremes and middle ground.
I, personally, have always studied #9 Category (Esotericism), but do not find the author familiar with my work, which can be found by searching around the internet with a new word I use: girasas. This word is very important because it helps us to view evolution as occurring by descent through animal-ascent through girasas kingdoms. The cycle of descent followed by ascent occurs 49 times, according to the writings in theosophy before a kingdom advances from one kingdom into the next.
It is by appearances of two kingdoms being present within the form during the 2nd and 6th races that misleads researchers into thinking that it actually happens much more quickly than it does. There is also an illusion due to angelic kingdoms accompanying each evolving kingdom and occupying forms that make the habitat for the evolving lives. It shows a complete range of animals in existence now from low forms to nearly human forms when (according to this view) the evolving life has only progressed halfway through its range (since this is the 4th round out of 7). When the evolving life ascends, the angelic lives take the place of that kingdom, and continues the gamut from wherever they have “paused” to the top of the animal forms.
We have been warned about illusion and now we have suggestions that evolution could be playing out in a cyclical manner rather than a straightforward one – and isn’t that the same problem scientists have had before?