Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Tampa paper reports:
Despite her argument, religion kept coming up anyway, as Storms pressed for her "academic freedom" act. Her bill would allow public school teachers to present science-based alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution, a theory written into Florida's curriculum standards and one that is held as a fundamental concept of biology by most members of the science community.Although professors spoke in opposition to the bill and a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union said it would open the door to teaching creationism, the committee voted to move the bill forward.
The bill would allow teachers to "present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical origins." It might as well read "present the full range of lies and nonsense from the intelligent design movement." That is precisely what it means and everyone knows it. And as soon as that happens, we will file suit in court and prove, yet again, that all of this is just a rhetorical masquerade for science. Welcome to the Dover trap.
And I must once again point out the special pleading going on here, the fact that only evolution is being singled out:
It's not about letting religion creep into science classrooms, Sen. Ronda Storms insisted.It's about protecting the rights of students and teachers who don't agree with the science behind Darwinian evolution, the Republican from Valrico argued before the Senate's pre-k through 12 education committee voted 4-1 Wednesday to approve the bill.
But why, then, is Storms not concerned about "protecting the rights of students and teachers" who don't agree with the big bang? Or the germ theory of disease? Or heliocentricity? Or the earth being spherical? There are students and teachers who disagree with all of those things. If she's going to claim that those students and teachers who object to evolution have a right to teach something other than the approved curriculum, then every single student and teacher who disagrees with any scientific theory has an equal right to teach what they believe to be true. Yet they don't apply their own arguments consistently. And they don't because they know it's a losing argument if they do. This is special pleading.
Comments
And why stop at science? Let's allow anyone's viewpoint to be taught in history, mathematics, social studies, literature, art, you name it! It'll be great! Students will be completely unable to discriminate between a good idea and a bad idea, between a fact and a lie. We'll teach Holocaust denial as history, pyramid schemes as ethical business strategies, Scientology as an alternative to psychiatry, and Time Cube as math (and, of course, Christian Nationalism as law). Rather than proven economic theories, why not Marxist dialectical materialism? And why not include sorcery, conjuring and astrology in the curriculum? Dennis Feyerabend would be proud.
I don't think anyone in the world actually believes this "Everyone's viewpoint is equivalent" horseshit. It's just a crutch used to prop up falsehoods and nonsense.
Posted by: Wes | March 28, 2008 9:49 AM
Considering that Judge Jones ruled pretty clearly that ID isn't science (I realize it doesn't apply in Florida, but its still a benchmark), it seems pretty stupid to try and slip ID in as a "Science based alternative." There are no Science based alternatives to evolution. If there were, they would already be taught.
Posted by: Robert | March 28, 2008 9:57 AM
And of course the legislators and DI hacks make sure that it's not them that's at risk of being sued, it's the sad-sack teacher or school administer who takes this legislation to heart.
So, this legislation is not designed to let teachers teach for instance safe-sex practices or teach that gays are families too. No, those teachers don't deserve "academic freedom". In fact, the legislation make it explicit the only "acedemic freedom" they are interested in is the freedom for teachers to teach whatever they please with regards to evolution.
Hey, good luck to those students who want to go on to university and actually study science. But...but...my teacher taught us this stuff was science. How can you fail me now??? That's discrimination! I demand my academic freedom and you must accept whatever I decide as correct!
Posted by: Dave S. | March 28, 2008 10:11 AM
Whoa! Check out the new pic.
Oh I think it applies across the board. It sets the precedent for how to deal with Cdesign proponentsists issues. I could be wrong (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am) that the Dover decision can be pointed to in any state. That however never stops school boards from setting policy to coincide with their stupidity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 28, 2008 10:14 AM
Have these people never heard of Dover?
Posted by: David Durant | March 28, 2008 10:44 AM
Can someone use Harun Yahya's "Invitation to Truth" in Florida biology classrooms now? What about a scientific justification of the Upanishads?
I think the easiest way to force out into the open really how much this ties in with Xtian Creationism views, and not an honest debate on evolution is to bring in as many different world religions' scientifically-based justifications of why their religion's creation story is the correct one.
And, yes, why always try and focus on evolution? Over on YouTube, cdk007 has a really good video titled, "What Every Creationist Must DENY" of other babies that Creationists must throw out with the bathwater of evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies
Posted by: Umlud | March 28, 2008 11:13 AM
I thought I heard the original bill would have included holocaust denial as a protected "freedom", but it was removed when another senator convinced the author that it would have no prayer of passing that way.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 28, 2008 12:14 PM
Golly. I thought it was those amoral liberal atheists who supported post-modern relativism.
But that's just my point of view...
Posted by: Amadán | March 28, 2008 1:36 PM
I've heard it said before that one of the benefits of this legislation is that it will allow science teachers to teach the scientific basis of homosexuality without intervention from the schools, and scientific alternatives to abstinence-only sexual education.
So even if it is passed, it would only take a couple brave teachers to bring this house of cards down around ID supporters.
Posted by: Dave Gundrson | March 28, 2008 2:04 PM
Couldn't this be settled if we all said- OK but we want you to teach the hindu theory of creation as well. Somehow I don't think these people would rally around Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. I would be really curious what their argument would be.
Posted by: licnyc | March 28, 2008 2:30 PM
This is excellent news for us Pastafarians!!!
Posted by: Invigilator | March 28, 2008 2:35 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | March 28, 2008 2:40 PM
I see no problem with a law that says teachers may "present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical origins."
As creationism is not science there is no scientific information about it, so if a teacher teaches creationism in the classroom, they should be sued for violating not only the constitutional rights of the students, but this law as well, because it is not "scientific information".
In fact, the law could even permit teachers to present information about why creationism is not science: that would be scientific information, because it is about the scientific method and how it is applied to creationism.
Posted by: Tom Farrell | March 28, 2008 2:46 PM
"The bill would allow teachers to 'present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical origins.'"
Later on there is another quote:
"It's about protecting the rights of students and teachers who don't agree with the science behind Darwinian evolution,..."
Evolution does not address the origin of life (abiogenesis). It addresses change in inherited traits of living things.
Posted by: Gary | March 28, 2008 2:52 PM
I'm sure we all know this is just another hopefull creationist attempt to find a favorable judge up for re-election. If they did win, they will all crow and point at Florida as "the way forward". Damm the legal costs to the local schools, damm the education of children. Only legalizing their insane sky god matters to the American Talaban.
Posted by: RAM | March 28, 2008 3:08 PM
Given that I've had many a discussion with creationists that seems to think that evolutionary theory covers everything from the origin of life on earth to the origin of the universe and physics, it might be more of a case of ignorance rather than special pleading. Then again, when it comes to debates over evolution, it is sometimes hard to tell who is dishonest and who is simply uneducated or misinformed.
Posted by: Jeremy | March 28, 2008 3:17 PM
America, land of the brave. Stupid is apparently the new brave. Anyway, these idiots aren't going to go away anytime soon, it's a political movement, not a religious one. They're just hiding behind the american Jesus myth, which itself is hiding behind any number of other Christ saviour mythologies.
We are fUx0r3d.
Posted by: Jacques | March 28, 2008 3:52 PM
There are alternatives to traditional evolution. You may not have studied them yet.
dna combination occurs instrange ways we do not fully understand, which are sensitive to electromagnetic fields. consider this in relation to earth's ionosphere and the living electromagnetic fields discovered by the Max Planck Institute and others in 2007.
I am also running for House of Representatives in Massachusetts. Visit my campaign page! www.williambunker2008.blogspot.com
Posted by: William Bunker | March 28, 2008 4:13 PM
ED, your last paragraph is dead on. What's funny about the big bang theory is that it was proposed by a catholic priest/scientist, and is "consistent" with the bible, so it has "everyone's" (the only people who are offended by opposition to there beliefs, jk lol) support. There are actually atheist astrophysicists who don't believe in the big bang, although they are a very small minority.
Posted by: shoeless | March 28, 2008 4:14 PM
Now THAT'S a handsome photo ;-)
Posted by: Jeff Seaver | March 28, 2008 4:16 PM
'Given that I've had many a discussion with creationists that seems to think that evolutionary theory covers everything from the origin of life on earth to the origin of the universe and physics, it might be more of a case of ignorance rather than special pleading. Then again, when it comes to debates over evolution, it is sometimes hard to tell who is dishonest and who is simply uneducated or misinformed."
Big issue I agree. Look at me. Look at the Biology chapter in the book "A Battle for Truth" by david Noebel. He divides into Secular Humanism, Marxism, Cosmic Humanism and Christian. He does exactly what you say. It is wrong. If people want to know why there is so much venmom on this you have to read these books.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 4:36 PM
"America, land of the brave. Stupid is apparently the new brave."
No disagreement, but I do believe something entirely else is going on. Mega-churches now make bazillions of untaxed dollars from those they fleece. Money is not only power, but political power, look at the last seven years, and notice how McCain is now pandering to those same fundies with that money.
Fundies are working hard to create a new crop of cash cows by keeping children unquestioning believers, their future depends on it, and I think they know it.
Posted by: RAM | March 28, 2008 5:47 PM
I am going to state this again many weeks later based on Jeremy's comment about all the ignorance:
If ID does get into the cirriculum in places(I am not for that at least not they way they are trying to do it for sure) it will be for one reason and one reason only: Total arrogance. You guys are gonna get killed in the PR. Why? It comes off as arrogant when you use the word ignorant. Misinformed is better. SO many here get pissed when people do not get the jargon or complexities. They attack and ridicule instead of inform.
I am not sure why it is but this is a fact. I might not know about Science but I do know about communicating to people. I have done it as a teacher and preacher cross culturally. I have been able to reach people others could not because I broke words and concepts down to where they could understand it. I learned this teaching kids that were years behind. Small bites and simple language works better than jargon throw at someone all at once. You know who you guys remind me of? Born again Christians who use lingo no one understands and then gets made when people say forget this and move on.
Now with that said, there have been people who are patient and explain things out so someone who is not educated in this can understand. I still have no clue what evolution is really saying in general. But I do know enough now to read into it in the correct way.
The first thing I am going to do is look into a HS biology textbook. If it conflates the argument for evolution and couples abiogensis with natural selection and common ancestor then I will know why so many people are confused. Many here want to disprove God through Science. That is fine. But in American you cannot use the schools to do it. If you do not stop you will be labeled a religion sooner or later and open up the Biology classroom to all kinds of crap. Progress will be hurt when this happens and you will not be able to blame the Christians.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I think Ed is right about a lot of this but no one would ever know it because it is not explained right by so many.(Though I think he does pretty good) You all want me to learn the lingo and all that goes with this culture here to be taken seriously. I have tried. I challenge you to do the same and learn how to make your message relevant in this culture. It is not. Why? It is not understood. I say all this to help not to hurt. God help us all if we return to the Dark Ages of dogmatic religion.
I guess what I am saying is what I had to say to all the Christians who sat on a mountain side in Colorado and wondered why no one wanted to come: Get out of your bubble and relate to the culture around you. There is a disconnect I am telling you. It is scary how similar both groups are really.
So call me anti elitist or whatever people said months ago when I brought this up but I hope people listen to what I am saying here and really think about it. I have found out many times you can be so right you are wrong and alienate people who would otherwise agree with you and help you. I learned the hard way most times.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 28, 2008 6:10 PM
The KOI school of Reverse Logic
"Many here want to disprove God through Science."
Not at all true, you have not been listening. Science does not care about god(s).
"But in American you cannot use the schools to do it."
Again, you have not been listening, fundies are the ones trying to subvert science classes to insert their version of god, and when it does not work, they are now using a publicity campaign to include their god into science, "teach both sides" bullcrap, when there are not two sides and never were. So Christians ARE doing this, not promoters of science. Creationists have already lost court cases in the past, and will lose in the future, because it's not real. They may win a few, but ultimately, truth and reality with win, because it has to.
Bottom line, very sorry fact does not fit old testiment stories and myths. But fact and real science cannot be warped to fit stone age creation stories, sadly, that thought process went away during the "Enlightenment", which fundies would now like to change. Some would say the bible has a bunch af great stories or parables on living life, but the factual details are not any more real than the Greek myths, and just as valid. I, and many like me, do not wish to life in a world of your false imposed myths, I find them disgusting and reprehensible.
Posted by: RAM | March 28, 2008 6:50 PM
The KOI school of Reverse Logic
"Many here want to disprove God through Science."
Not at all true, you have not been listening. Science does not care about god(s).
"But in American you cannot use the schools to do it."
Again, you have not been listening, fundies are the ones trying to subvert science classes to insert their version of god, and when it does not work, they are now using a publicity campaign to include their god into science, "teach both sides" bullcrap, when there are not two sides and never were. So Christians ARE doing this, not promoters of science. Creationists have already lost court cases in the past, and will lose in the future, because it's not real. They may win a few, but ultimately, truth and reality with win, because it has to.
Bottom line, very sorry fact does not fit old testiment stories and myths. But fact and real science cannot be warped to fit stone age creation stories, sadly, that thought process went away during the "Enlightenment", which fundies would now like to change. Some would say the bible has a bunch af great stories or parables on living life, but the factual details are not any more real than the Greek myths, and just as valid. I, and many like me, do not wish to life in a world of your false imposed myths, I find them disgusting and reprehensible.
Posted by: RAM | March 28, 2008 6:50 PM
OK, nothing to add on the thread, but DAAAAMMMMMMNNNN ED you are more handsome in the new pic... just a compliment; I am hetro and newly, happily married, lest you think you have a stalker (or new type of stalker) to worry about.
Sorry, carry on.
Shot man.
Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | March 28, 2008 7:40 PM
Seeing my post, I remember the difference in slang from here to there. When you say "Shot" here, it is slang for (something like) "good shot" in sports, but has carried over to other communication. just in case it was not clear (I have been here so long I can't keep track).
Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | March 28, 2008 7:50 PM
Considering that Judge Jones ruled pretty clearly that ID isn't science (I realize it doesn't apply in Florida, but its still a benchmark), it seems pretty stupid to try and slip ID in as a "Science based alternative." There are no Science based alternatives to evolution. If there were, they would already be taught.
I've seen this point made a number of times. Unfortunately, Jones' decision only covers district 3:
http://www.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap.pdf
It can be pointed to as an argument for a precedent, but it doesn't have to be accepted by a judge in the 11th district as such. He/she can rule that ID IS science, not matter how ridiculous that seems to those of us who have been keeping an eye on the movement for the last decade or so, it is possible. I think that is what the ID advocates are hoping for. They're really pushing in Florida and Texas, two areas with rather conservative federal judges and the chance that they might render a ruling that contradicts Jones' ruling in the 3rd district. This could be an effort to push for a Supreme Court ruling. With the conservative makeup of the court, my guess is, that they are hoping that the SCOTUS renders a ruling that makes ID a "viable scientific theory." Unlikely if they honestly look at the evidence, but not impossible.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 28, 2008 8:05 PM
I hate christianity as much as the next guy, but the church of atheism is just perverting evolution to recruit people. Their revision of Earth's history is ridiculous by any standard, and they rely on their belief that anything can be right as long as christianity is wrong.
Posted by: Zareste | March 28, 2008 8:43 PM
Zareste: What the hell are you talking about? What is the 'church of atheism' and in what way is it 'perverting evolution' and revising earths history?
Posted by: jba | March 28, 2008 9:12 PM
Florida Toilet Paper Bill Passes Senate Committee
MyFoxOrlando.com, FL -
The bill (SB 386) was approved Tuesday by the Senate Regulated Industries Committee. It has two more Senate committee stops to go, and if it doesn't get ...
Droopy drawers bill passes Florida Senate, heads to House committee
MyFoxOrlando.com, FL -
The bill (SB 302) passed 28-11. A similar measure (HB 335) is going through the House committee process. No one debated against the measure Thursday but on ...
Florida House Committee Passes Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
Medical News Today (press release), UK -
A Florida House committee on Thursday passed a measure (HB 513) that bill that defines life as beginning at conception for the purpose of prosecuting ...
Tuition-Education amendment passes in Senate, House next
Florida Times-Union, FL -
We do that all the time." The amendment (SJR 2308) passed 33-4. A similar measure (HJR 7025) is going through the committee process in the House. ...
Florida House Committee Passes So-Called Human Life Legislation
Ms. Magazine, CA -
A Florida House of Representatives Committee passed a bill on Thursday that defines life as beginning at conception. According to the Daily Women's Health ...
House Passes 'Guns-At-Work' Bill
Local6.com, FL -
David Daniel, a vice president with the Florida Chamber of Commerce, said he was disappointed with the vote and hopes the bill will not pass the Senate. ...
Panel weighs caps on government revenue
MiamiHerald.com, FL -
Hogan modeled his original version after the controversial Taxpayer's Bill of Rights Colorado passed in 1992 and suspended in 2005. ...
Senate passes plan to de-emphasize FCAT
Sun-Sentinel.com, FL -
The Florida Senate passed a plan to use multiple factors, not just FCAT results to determine a high school's grade. What do you think? Great! ...
Legislative briefs: Droopy draws and more
Sarasota Herald-Tribune, FL -
The Business Regulation Committee voted 8-4 against her bill (HB 437) Thursday. That makes it unlikely the House would pass Crist's version (SB 386), ...
Bill Calling for Ultrasounds Before Abortions Advances
The Ledger, FL -
The bill (HB 257) passed through the committee with a 10-6 vote and has one more committee stop before the House floor. Florida would join several other ...
Posted by: wingtip | March 28, 2008 9:12 PM
Only ignorant fools believe in I.D.
Posted by: Enlightenment | March 28, 2008 11:08 PM
KoI, you do have a point - the general populace gets offended at being called "ignorant." On the other hand, they won't pay attention long enough to hear the reasons why the ID crowd are so clearly wrong. Trying to boil it down to sound bite-sized pieces makes it far too vulnerable to misinterpretation and fallacy-ridden ID counter-arguments. In that light, making a point of calling Creationists/ID-ers "ignorant" may possibly help to drive the masses away from them, simply because they don't want to be thought of that way. The key is in convincing the masses that anyone with sense knows better.
As far as the other theories Ed mentioned that have not yet been challenged...give them time, and a little success. I once heard an interview with a rabid pro-lifer who admitted that once abortion was illegal, the next step was to ban birth control. With the ID crowd, I feel sure that a successful erasure of evolution will lead to further challenges to accepted science as they move us forward to the 12th century.
Posted by: BobApril | March 29, 2008 4:31 AM
"Zareste: What the hell are you talking about? What is the 'church of atheism' and in what way is it 'perverting evolution' and revising earths history?"
These people are as sharp as a bowling ball.
Firstly, you should keep better track of your own religion's beliefs. Second, the church of atheism is a church, of atheism. Third, they are perverting the theory of evolution by teaching only the parts that seem to substantiate their religion. Again we need to remember that religion and science do not mix. Atheist religion takes after the old christian tactics of using pseudo-science and a pseudo-history to promote a set of wild beliefs they consider self-evident, except to a greater degree, as atheism's dogma considers 99% of history and science to be religious dogma. They simply discard all facts and build their own little history from scratch, much like the 7-day creation. Simple enough?
Posted by: Zareste | March 29, 2008 6:33 AM
To jba RE Zareste: Aren't you sorry you asked?
More to the point, the Florida legislature should drop the ID bill and concern itself with laws to keep the Antarctic ice sheet to stay in place. There won't be much Miami beachfront property above the water line in 20 years if present projections are accurate.
Posted by: infoshaman | March 29, 2008 7:31 AM
To jba RE Zareste: Aren't you sorry you asked?
More to the point, the Florida legislature should drop the ID bill and concern itself with laws to keep the Antarctic ice sheet to stay in place. There won't be much Miami beachfront property above the water line in 20 years if present projections are accurate.
Posted by: infoshaman | March 29, 2008 7:31 AM
Sen. Storms is a fundie activist from way back. When she was a county commissioner she successfully led a public outcry against the public library's "Gay Pride" exhibit because it "endangered" the children and was "offensive" to Christian families. Book banning was just the beginning of her evil career. She was elected on her Christianist beliefs by a community that largely supports her agenda.
While she is trying to sneak creationism into the classroom the state legislature is cutting funding for public schools, nursing care for the elderly, help for foster children who are transitioning to adulthood, and publicly financed medical care for the mentally ill, children, and elderly.
There is nothing "Christian" about this agenda. It is pure, unadulterated Republican conservatism at its worst, which, having been in control of the state government here for the last 9 years, is largely responsible for the horrible recession and crumbling infrastructure we are experiencing here now. Public schools are being destroyed by the slow method, through defunding and testing while charter (including religious) schools are being protected and promoted by the legislature and the governor at all costs.
The state that brought you hanging chads and Terry Schiavo is happy to allow school-led prayer, teach religious beliefs in schools, and to promote the Christianist agenda.
You get the government you deserve and the majority of people who vote for these politicians are perfectly content to have uneducated children who will further their cause.
As you sow, so shall you reap. Me, I'm leaving this backward, racist, homophobic state ASAP.
Posted by: Goober Peas | March 29, 2008 7:33 AM
If this passes, I'm going to become a science teacher so I can teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.
Posted by: drbri | March 29, 2008 8:21 AM
Since evidently, at least according to Zareste, using reason to reach logical conclusions isn't permissible, perhaps one may be forced to consider attacking the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the science classroom on the basis that that it would be a mortal sin if such things were taught in the science classroom. Thou shall not bear false witness! You simply can't teach creationism or intelligent design and not bear false witness. Unfortunately for the creationism and ID crowds, "God" has left too many clues suggesting that she used evolution by means of natural selection to create the diversity of life we see on the planet earth (and now possibly on other planets as well, although admittedly astrobiology is still in its infancy).
We must prevent the distortion of science to save their souls.
Posted by: Turkeyfish | March 29, 2008 8:37 AM
Thanks james and dogmeat. IANAL as is painfully obvious.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 29, 2008 9:16 AM
If I was a teacher in Florida, I'd assign kids "The Case of the Midwife Toad", a book that suggests there is something to Lamarkian evolution. And wait for the complaints from Creationists that I twisted their intent.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | March 29, 2008 9:32 AM
Ram state:
"Not at all true, you have not been listening. Science does not care about god."
For some others want to make this a discussion about God/no God. You have not been listening to me. I agree that the vast majority of the ID crowd is using it to get a court win and then bring the rest of their "Paleoconservative" politics and agenga with it. I have stated numerous times on numerous comments that I agree with them theologically and doctinely.(ABout the big things like Deity of Christ and Virgin birth...) I do not ascribe to all of their philosophy and politics.
I think a look into design in nature in general and specifically in natural selection could be good. From what I read Darwin said that it appeared designed but it was natural selection. What if the appearance is true. As far as the intelligence of it that gets into the supernatural and by the methodological materialist definition of Science should not be considered. I do think any evidence gained through study of design in Biology class should be part of a philosophy class or comparative religons class where all get equal time.
To me this is the best way to keep good Science. That is coming from someone who has some issues with Common descent and Natural Selection in my personal beliefs. At least as far as I understand the the two. With is not real far yet so I tread lightly. As more New Age thoughts come into the mainstream Science will be attacked from the Pantheist side as well. This could open up a can of worms that no one wants where folk rememdies and all are taught as Science.
Ram also stated:
"A very sorry fact does not fit old testiment stories and myths. But fact and real science cannot be warped to fit stone age creation stories, sadly, that thought process went away during the "Enlightenment", which fundies would now like to change. Some would say the bible has a bunch af great stories or parables on living life, but the factual details are not any more real than the Greek myths, and just as valid. I, and many like me, do not wish to life in a world of your false imposed myths, I find them disgusting and reprehensible."
You state that Science has nothing to say about God and then in the very next paragraph contrdict yourself. As Ed states, I do not have a problem with Science. I have a problem with people who want to use Science as a platform to make it say things it cannot. If it rules out the supernatural to begin with because it cannot test it the it should stay silent on it.
You are doing the same thing you hate the "fundies" doing. You are saying one thing but your clear intention is to postulate that there is no God or whatever and use Science to do it. I agree there intention is to use the Science room to prove there is a god. If it stopped there it might even be ok on both sides but there is extensive world views on all sides of this. Broad labels are bad but everyone seems to have an agenda to use the schools to promote their own worldview and get pissed when others do the same. This is in the ID and evolution camp.
I think it is important to make it clear what our stance is toward schools seperate from our personal beliefs and worldview. I feel I have done that. It is two similtaneous debates going on here: What is good for the schools and What does Science have to say about God? Those that want to use the former to promote the latter are in violation of the establishment clause. You do not have to believe in God to have a religion.
Posted by: King of Ireland | March 29, 2008 10:33 AM
King,
There is a problem here in that when you talk about God, you refer to the Christian God as described in the Bible. Many others here talk as theists about a generic God.
So think of it this way... if you substitute "the supernatural" for the word "God", then science doesn't address it. But the Bible, when taken literally, makes claims of fact (eg... that the world is 6000 years old). And these facts can be tested by science, and many of them have been proven to be incorrect.
So Ram is entirely correct in what he wrote... but admittedly, from your point of view, I can see how you'd be confused.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 29, 2008 10:56 AM
If these Republican lawmakers believe "it's about protecting the rights of students and teachers who don't agree with the science behind Darwinian evolution," I wonder how they'd feel about a similar bill protecting the rights of students and teachers who prefer to use African-American vernacular English grammar instead of "standard" (i.e., middle-/upper-class European-American) English grammar? I mean, if it's unfair to tell students to believe differently from their parents, surely it's also unfair to tell them to speak differently from their parents.
Posted by: An Jiaoshi | March 29, 2008 11:29 AM
doctorgoo,
You are getting at a valid distinction in here, but it needs a clarifying footnote:
A theist may be a Christian, a follower of Jesus and his teachings, without reading the Bible as a book of rules or as an accurate history or as a science text. A Christian can (and many do) see the Bible as a collection of incomplete and oft-translated manuscripts of different periods and perspectives (some passages contradicting others) - a collection that gives us insight into how some people in the past have struggled to understand who God is and what that means for their own lives and behavior.
There is no single or universally agreed-on "Christian God as described by the Bible" and no universal understanding of what might be meant by a "generic God."
Posted by: JuliaL | March 29, 2008 12:57 PM
I think the point can also be made that the kinds of Christians who are most firmly in the ID camp also tend to believe that the Bible is a book written by God (sometimes even in the original English) whose content is inerrant.
The kinds of Christians who see it the way you portray also tend to be the Christians who want their children to learn science in school and religion at church.
"When you show me a church based on the Golden Rule as its only creed, then I will unite with it." -- Abraham Lincoln
Posted by: Interested Observer | March 29, 2008 1:59 PM
Absolutely true, JuliaL. As hazy and confusing as the distinction is as I described it, it's actually much hazier as you pointed out.
This is one of the main reasons why it's so easy for people having a discussion like the one above to end up talking past each other, completely misinterpretting one another.
Posted by: doctorgoo | March 29, 2008 2:02 PM
I'd love to see what would happen if some science-friendly legislators tacked on a rider extending the same "academic freedom" to, say, sex education. This is, after all, the state where a school superintendent in Okeechobee refused to allow a gay-straight club to meet on school property on the dubious grounds that it conflicted with their abstinence-based curriculum. Imagine if they were faced with the specter of teachers being able to tell their students that homosexuality was natural, or that birth control actually does work, without fear of being fired.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | March 29, 2008 4:48 PM
Wow - are people really as naive as the comments here suggest?
Darwinian Evolution is a theory under scientific review. It's not a fact. 25-30 years ago it was entered into most school curricula and the info on it has seldom, if at all, been updated to keep with on-going research. Ex: Remember the chart of evolution? The one with the monkey to man pictures? These are based on diagrams from bone and skeletal fragments of "Austrailiopithicus Africanus". With modern DNA those fragments were retested and found to be an extinct form of an ape with no relationship to man. Yet Text books in schools today still carry the diagram and it is taught as scientific fact.
A law that allows teachers to introduce students to scientific alternatives to former evolutionary thought - is a law that promotes modern education. Take that law away and we end up learning as fact - what has already been proven fiction. ...a bit middle ages, don't you think?
Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 2:19 AM
Sorry, Kate - the existence of outdated evidence in older textbooks, evidence that has been replaced with newer data leading to essentially the same conclusions, does not justify replacing those texts with pseudo-scientific concepts built backwards from a predetermined conclusion. Pretty much all K-12 science education is an overview, intended to present an essentially correct view without necessarily delving into the fine details where legitimate arguments still exist.
As an analogy, most high school physics classes still teach Newtonian physics, even though Einsteinian physics and Chaos Theory have invalidated and supplanted Newton's simpler concepts. Under your notion, since Newton isn't completely accurate, we should trash it and go back to teaching geocentric science, with the cycles and epicycles required to explain the Universe's orbits around the Earth. Why don't we do that? Because Newtonian physics is enough to give students an essentially correct view of physics, with the fine detail reserved for more advanced education. The same is true for those outdated Darwinian diagrams.
Posted by: BobApril | March 30, 2008 3:10 AM
BobApril - No, Newtonian Physics is not the same thing at all. Teaching earlier steps in basic science, and leaving details and new advances to higher ed IS legitimate. Original Darwinian theories, however, are now known to be completely incorrect. There are on-going studies looking for a biological component that could cause or account for the process called evolution. That component has NOT been identified. So teaching Darwinian Evolution is about as accurate as teaching that the world is flat.
Personally, I don't know much about the current theories and ideas around creationism. If, however, the schools are going to try and teach the origin of the species, absent of any clear scientific evidence - brining in all current thought and belief is legitimate.
Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 3:34 AM
just elaborating:
I do know there are people who believe the world was created in 7 current earth days - 10,000 years ago. As an archaeologist I've uncovered human cultural remains that predate this supposed period. Darwinian Evolution believed that man evolved from apes though all data to date stands against that theory.
So if one of my children's teachers wants to teach the "orgin of mankind" - I would appreciate them learning the truth... we really don't know but there ARE several different beliefs and ideas: and here are some of the current ones...
Tracing our beginnings is not something we, as creatures, have managed to do at the moment. Evolution is not scientific (even if it is researched extensively by the scientific community).
Physics, on the other hand, consists of actual, real scientific data and on-going revelations, upon which one generation postulates and another generation adds to. I learned that Atoms were the smallest matter. Smaller matter has since been identified - but atoms still exist, and are still very small and still make up matter. Atoms were not "disproven" - we simply learned that they are not actually the smallest.
The theories of evolution do not match this type of scientific process. Nor do the theories of creation. Chances are, when it comes to human origins - no theory will ever match the pattern of advancing studies in physics. It's not a great parallel.
Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 3:52 AM
A "biological component," Kate? What studies are these? And what's wrong with good old DNA, which provides ample chance for random mutation leading to new traits?
In the meantime, it is impossible to present all current thought and belief on ANY subject, much less one so tied into religious belief as the origins of our species. At best, a science class can hope to cover two or three currently accepted scientific theories - accepted by legitimate experts, not any crackpot with a loud mouth and too much funding. For example, in my science classes on the origin of the universe, my teachers covered both the Big Bang and the Steady State. But for the origin of species, there is NO accepted theory to challenge evolution, merely a few different ideas about how evolution works. And certainly, Intelligent Design does NOT qualify as a scientific theory - much less an accepted one. "Teach the controversy" only makes sense if the controversial viewpoints have roughly equal validity.
Posted by: BobApril | March 30, 2008 4:05 AM
I agree 100% with you that "the origin of the species is tied to a lot of religious belief".
Human evolution is a theory. Period. It is not a fact. There is no supporting data and previous data, thought to have supported the theory, is no longer in the running and has been disproven using modern scientific means inclusive of DNA testing, biological research and recent archaeological finds (if you have a year free - I could go over some of my studies with you).
Our origins (at this point in our history) is like looking into a black hole. We have basically no evidence for what may have happened - and some supporting evidence what we know did not happen. Ie: Human life is older than 10,000 years and other life forms pre-existed humans and sea-life appears at the moment to be the oldest of all. Also, many creatures today bear traits and resemblance to earlier life forms that are now extinct - though we cannot document a direct relationship other than noting that these species are related.
20 years from now we will understand DNA better - but for now, biology, DNA and studies into mutations show - EXTENSIVELY - that mutations do not commonly reproduce, nor do they lead to advancing a species. Mutations appear to have the exact opposite effect. But we digress: the outside, rare possibility that a mutation may actually reproduce and effect an evolution within a species does not justify teaching our children something that legitimate science knows is not true.
Mr April - that chart I learned for 6 years in K-12 - I later learned was disproven and discarded by the scientific community prior to my graduation. That was a blow (to me and my entire class in University). My own children deserve to know that "origins" are not science. They are theory. And that theory may change. And I want them to be in a place to accept new theories and ideas and grow and learn. And I have no problem with them also learning that some people believe that man's origins were a product of a greater intelligence, and that they will meet some of these people in their lives. And that some of these people are intelligent and deserve respect. I also want them to know that many believe (and strongly) that evolution is somehow still responsible for human life - and that some of these people are intelligent and deserve respect.
IMHO - take the theory of evolution out of the science class and place it in Social Studies - where it belongs.
If I can teach this to a 10 year old in an afternoon - why do you think the school system can't?
Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 4:49 AM
Kate, you imply that your extensive study of these concepts - so extensive that it would take a year to explain it to me - makes your opinion more credible. And yet you persist in making the most common error of a non-scientist, the concept that if something is "only a theory," then it can be easily dismissed. In particular, you said that evolution isn't science, it's only a theory.
However, in science, to be granted the status of theory is the pinnacle of what a concept can be. A theory is something that has withstood challenges, successfully made predictions, and closely fits all available data. There is nothing in science beyond theories. Your hurt feelings when you discovered that the incomplete and possibly garbled explanations you received in science class were not totally complete and accurate do not detract from the validity of the theory of evolution, nor is it sufficient reason to include the backward, conclusion-first notions of Intelligent Design - notions that don't even approach the dignity of a hypothesis, much less a theory. I would support the teaching of a legitimate theory that challenges evolution - but thus far, none exists. Until one arises, evolution belongs in science classes, and those other fuzzy beliefs belong down the hall in philosophy or comparative religion.
Posted by: BobApril | March 30, 2008 6:38 AM
BobApril, I agree creationism has no place in science lessons but I'm not sure it helps to put it elsewhere in the curriculum. There is enough to teach in philosophy if we include critical thinking, history of the different schools of philosophy and how philosophers have influenced politics and society. Comparative religion could play an important role in encouraging tolerance and give a grounding for dealing with our diverse world by teaching what others actually believe and practice. I think both subjects have something to offer students and shouldn't be used as dumping grounds for ideas that don't fit elsewhere. More generally is it a good idea to have a lesson where the teacher can say in effect "all your other teachers are wrong this is THE TRUTH" Sorry to ramble, I hope I managed to get a point in there somewhere.
Posted by: Matt | March 30, 2008 7:25 AM
Kate wrote:
All scientific theories are under scientific review. They are continually tested every time we make a new observation.
Right. Then please explain why the most commonly used high school biology textbook, Miller and Levine, is now on its 5th edition (and this is a textbook that hasn't been around all that long). And explain why the authors of that textbook are constantly updating the book with podcasts and supplemental material to keep up with any new research that might affect the issues discussed in the book. You can see the diligence with which they keep up with current research and make sure students are informed of it here.
First of all, only someone quite ignorant of evolution would claim that this chart shows "monkey to man" evolution. Perhaps you should do some research on the difference between monkeys (which are our biological cousins, not ancestors) and the great apes of the miocene era. Secondly, everything else in your statement is utter nonsense. The chart you refer to is only a representation of the general way that various traits developed over the course of the last few million years. Do you really think a student in a class can identify the difference between Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus afarensis? You provide no citation at all for the claim that Australopithecus africanus was found, through the testing of "modern DNA" (what on earth did they compare it to?) to have "no relationship to man" - a claim no scientist would make. They might say it had no direct ancestral relationship, but that is not the same thing as having "no relationship at all." Seriously, if you're going to make such vague and silly claims here you're going to look quite absurd.
Some of them, yes. That's why it's absurd to continue to call the modern theory of evolution "Darwinism." Modern science has advanced just a bit in the last 150 years. Perhaps you should have noticed it.
This is little more than gibberish. It's quite literally a word salad. We know perfectly well what "biological components" account for the process of evolution, both in terms of the sources of genetic variation (mutation, recombination, etc) and the ways in which those variations can be weeded out of or fixed in a population (natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, species selection, founder effect, etc). There are some disputes about the relative importance of those mechanisms in the development of particular traits or lineages, but that's hardly a surprise and does nothing to diminish the validity of the common descent model.
Bullshit. Man shares a common ancestor with modern apes.
Double bullshit. You don't even make a pretense of an argument here, for crying out loud, you just declare it so as if it was self-evident. Anthropologists studying human evolution use all the same tools of science every other branch of science does. I love it when ignorami come in and declare that every single scientist in the world is not merely wrong, but blatantly wrong and obviously lying. Does that argument actually work on anyone with even a mediocre education on these issues?
Yet another person who doesn't understand that theories do not become facts, they explain facts. Theories are never anything but well supported theories.
I'll take literature bluffing for $1000, Alex. Again, all of this is pure bullshit. We have a great deal of data showing how the human species evolved. We have a couple of dozen identified hominid species with hundreds of specimens, and those fossil remains show the gradual development of every key diagnostic human trait - bipedality, brain size (and brain to body size ratio), dentition, cultural sophistication and the use of tools, etc. They are found in exactly the right temporal and anatomical order that is predicted by evolution. If not evolution, what is the explanation for that evidence? Was God practicing, making a series of almost-almost-almost human, to almost-almost human to almost human to human?
As for these alleged DNA studies, please provide actual citations for them. From which precise hominid species and specimens have we been able to derive DNA and what did those studies show?
More bullshit. Are you going for a record? The statement "mutations do not commonly reproduce" is - again - absolute gibberish. Of course a mutation doesn't reproduce; an organism bearing a mutation might reproduce. And in fact, we have identified all sorts of mutations that resulted in the development of key new traits (for example, the development of hemoglobin).
Okay, you are officially a fucking moron. The development of theories is what science does. Period. The entire point of doing science is to develop theories that explain the data. To contrast science with theories is prima facie proof of being a grade A ignoramus.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 30, 2008 12:34 PM
"However, in science, to be granted the status of theory is the pinnacle of what a concept can be. A theory is something that has withstood challenges, successfully made predictions, and closely fits all available data." (BobApril)
BobApril, how does Evolutionary Theory "closely fit all available data"? It certainly failed to withstand scientific challenge (DNA of material remains of other possible candidates on the scale). And has it ever successfully predicted anything? How could it? Darwinian evolution is continuously reviewed in the realm of science - but in itself IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. It is not "observed", nor "observable" It cannot be tested in a laboratory. It cannot be challenged by any existing control group. All we can do is look at advances in biology, physics and archaeology and see if any of these fit in with the theory of evolution. Most current advances don't.
Evolution is a social theory of how humans arrived here at this place and time. We may yet find some real supporting evidence for it - but that hasn't happened.
I would love to sit you down in a small group of my female PHD friends for a wee chat on "theory". We are actually all quite intelligent (and don't get our feelings "hurt" when we learn). This in spite of a once very strong "theory" that women were delicate creatures requiring insulation and protection from the world of men and learning. No new scientific theory was advanced to combat THAT disaster in thinking. We just had a whole lot of very smart grandmas and great-grandmas who kicked against that iron wall until it finally collapsed.
Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 12:39 PM
Response to Ed Brayton-
This is a chat-talk-back forum, not an academic symposium, nor a street fight. There is no room for footnotes or extensive bibliography's. There is also no room for denigrating the discussion into name calling.
My comments to BobApril are legitimate, as are his replies to me. Neither of us are morons or idiots (in my opinion he is quite reasonable and has much to say on the subject) and everyone who participates has the right to respond to the subject at hand: ie: legislation that enables the introduction of ID into K-12 curricula.
I support the legislation for reasons stated above, while others do not for reasons they stated above.
Posted by: Kate | March 30, 2008 1:54 PM
Kate wrote:
Bullshit. You have a keyboard in front of you. That keyboard makes letters on the screen and those letters can just as easily spell out a citation to the scientific literature, or at least a link to an abstract or a discussion of a paper, as it can ridiculous statements like this:
That is pure ignorance. You have a 4th grader's cartoonish notion of the scientific method if you think that we have to observe an actual event (or series of events) in order to develop scientific theories to explain it. The process of explaining historical processes uses the same kind of reasoning as any other scientific theory. We sentence people to death based on that precise type of deductive reasoning every day in this country even though we can't observe the actual event.
You have repeatedly claimed that DNA studies have somehow falsified our understanding of human evolution based on the paleontological evidence, but you haven't cited a single example or even told us which hominid species have had DNA extracted, sequenced and compared (or to what they were compared). If you make the positive claim, you ought to be able to back it up. If you can't, you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 30, 2008 2:08 PM
I think Kate is actually on to something, although I'm not convinced that she isn't concealing some ID/creationist cards behind her ostensibly 'scientific' argument.
Is there not an alternative between teaching evolution as dogma, and teaching Intelligent Design as a competing dogma with equally valid claims? Is this not the same alternative to what Bob is suggesting - that ID has no place in a science classroom?
What I'm getting at should be obvious. I absolutely agree that evolution is a scientific theory, and a great one, and it deserves to be taught as such. I also absolutely agree that ID is a creationist theory masquerading as a scientific one, and an awful one ... although we shouldn't forget that it was by far the most successful and really the only plausible hypothesis for the origin of life until Darwin came along (see Aristotle, Kant, and even a few after Darwin like Teilhard de Chardin). But the critics of the dogmatic evolutionist position on this site (Kate and 'King of Ireland') are clearly really, really smart, and as believers in evolution we're not doing ourselves any favours by discarding their claims out of hand... even though they could easily be used to buttress a creationist wedge strategy. (Speaking of which, someone in the first few comments mentioned 'Dennis Feyerabend' as though he was a creationist. He's a philosopher of science and his name is Paul Feyerabend, and whoever referred to him clearly has no idea what his project really meant.)
What I'm coming around to is simple: maybe this law is a blessing in disguise. Instead of treating evolution like a religious dogma - which is what gets the hackles of religious folk up in the first place - let's treat it like the scientific theory that it is. Is this theory so weak that it can't stand up to a bit of rational scrutiny? Personally, I don't think so, even if the folks arguing against it are often doing so in very bad faith and without any attention to the standard procedures of reason and logic. I'm well aware that this is a wedge strategy, and a slippery slope, and all that. But personally I'm convinced that with the right curriculum, ID has a very important place in biology class: as an example both of how scientific theories aren't *certain,* and of what scientific certainty actually *means.* This would entail bringing in a discussion of Popper falsifiability, all the other thorny issues of scientific validity and how scientific practice comes to terms with these really tricky problems, and also showing why ID is a pseudoscience because it picks and chooses its evidence and its claims are eminently unfalsifiable.
Isn't this the best conceivable compromise? ID advocates get what they ostensibly "wanted," (ie. exposure to 'competing theories') but the curriculum is structured so that biology students get taught exactly how one-sided the competition really is from a scientific perspective. And as a bonus, they get introduced to the philosophy of science, they learn a bit about what scientific 'truth' really means outside the sphere of science proper, and maybe a few creationists will learn why it's not always a good idea to get what you wish for.
Posted by: ali | March 30, 2008 2:17 PM
Oh, and reading over these last few posts:
Ed Brayton, you are acting like a pig.
Are you *seriously* the person writing this blog? Please, will the real author of this blog post tell me that the person posting under their name is just a troll?
I can't believe that you consider yourself a legitimate author, and yet you call a poster a "fucking moron" in comments. If that is in fact you, Ed Brayton, author of this original post, here is a reasoned arugment of why you're a pig, and why people like you (and the people exactly like you on the other side) are wholly responsible for this absurd ID-evolution debate.
First off, regardless of your respective positions, that's just not civil. Kate was being polite, and so no matter how much you disagree, if you fire the first shot into ad hominem territory, you're a pig.
Second, you clearly have no comprehension of the real issues at stake in scientific theorization beyond your own dogmatic belief in the unquestionable efficacy of the scientific method. This is historically silly, given that 'scientific method' is really a historical plurality of methods. There's nothing inherent about Darwinism that makes it irrefutable. There's a whole bunch of compelling evidence that makes it a WAY more scientifically acceptable theory than creationism. But another paradigm could come along and reshape the neo-Darwinian synthesis in the same way that relativity eclipsed Newtonian mechanics without refuting Newton's conclusions within their proper domain. So there's nothing special about Darwinism that makes it inviolable. You and Kate are talking past each other: she wants you to recognize that a theory is just that, a theory, while you want her to recognize that some theories are better than other. In the process you exclude the middle path, which is the only logical one. Evolution is just a theory, but a damn good one. Any hidden creationist cards on Kate's part are negated, but so is your bizarrely polemical tone.
So the third point is simple: why the vitriol, Ed Brayton? Are you so scared of a bit of critical inquiry that you have to start cussing out people who question