Florida puts forth plan to require evolution to be taught in schools

All hell is gonna break loose here, I fear. I mean, the very idea that only evolution will be taught is an obscene concept in this area with 4 bible colleges and a Southern Baptist Church on every corner.

Plan to Require Evolution To Be Taught in Schools



I don't know about other counties, but I believe ours had been teaching both side by side. We never used to touch the subject when I was teaching before I retired from the elementary grades.

Looks like someone finally discovered it was hurting our state in science scores.



I notice the article has several quotes from the dean at Southeastern University, until recently known as Southeastern Bible College.

That dean states all views should be taught. I don't think so, not in a science class. Southeastern is a place that thinks getting Sean Hannity for a speech is a huge triumph.

Interesting comment by one of the framers:

please let me know - I have three children in Florida public schools.

What were they teaching them before? Is it possible my kids had rogue teachers?

don't believe in Evolution since they didn't Evolve..poor things. They always want to push their flatearth crap on everyone else, though..and that makes them dangerous poor things.

college courses in various sciences and referenced in other disciplines such as literature, history, philosophy, etc. Students have the right to be prepared to enter college with this knowledge.

I agree.

Less Fundies in College? Works for me.

They can say "God Bless you" when they hand me my burger.

Run and hide!!:scared:

I guarantee you.

GOD can do anything, so why can't GOD do EVOLUTION? Why can't GOD just wind up the machine and let 'er go?

WHAT is so "Anti-religion" about this concept?

Theory of Descent with Modification
1)Evolution
2)Common Descent
3)Multiplication of Species
4)Gradualism
5)Natural Selection

now if you aren't a bible literalist, the first 4 don't really conflict with most viewpoints.:rant: of course the fact that there are bible literalists in this country is a completely different story, one that i could go on for ages about. the inanity of such a thing... end aside.

now number 5 gets a lot of religious persons going is because it goes against the conception of a benevolent creator. as in, it shows that everything is purposeless and meaningless, it's just luck. it shows that "god" or "gods" doesn't have a plan for us. now this is what originally got people going when OtOoS (on the origin of species) was published in 1859.:rant: however, nowadays in modern dumb-ass ignoramus america, people just hear evolution and it's a buzz word. they don't really know what they are fighting against. or they are bible literalists hacks, something which i could so thoroughly lambaste it wouldn't even be funny. but that's the "anti-religious" part.

p.s. in case you couldn't tell, i'm an atheist, and this kind of thing gives me a feeling of :puke: and :grr:

:nuke:

not teaching it at all.

now i can't bash on florida as easily as i usually do. oh wait, yes i can. i can't believe it took this long. welcome to civilized society, we teach science, things that require more than just blind and idiotic faith. *sigh* what a poor commentary on our country.

Evolution.

However, I do think it's a good thing to discuss various theories of Evolution as well as the philosophical framework those theories arise from.

Yes Virginia, there is such a field as Philosophy of Science.

And there're basically two paths Philosophy of Science branch off into.

Both paths are valid. Both have strong points, both have weaknesses.

Darwinism exists within, and is the product of, one philosophical framework.

An honest, scientifically-sound discussion would welcome theories arising from the other philosophical framework.

And American history.

Why won't they teach different theories of American history? Like how Thomas Edison freed the slaves and fought Napoleon in 1492?

One is based upon all the available evidence, and one is just people making shit up- so obviously we should present both "philosophical approaches" to historical research as equivalent.

Right? :sarcasm:

1) Bullshit.

2) Define "Philosophy of Science"

3) What "various theories of evolution" are there? Care to elaborate? There aren't "various theories" of evolution, there is the established, verified, scientifically accepted framework of Darwinian evolution by natural selection which is backed up by mountains of physical, fossil, and DNA evidence, and then there is the bullshit from the Discovery Institute, which is fabricated completely out of thin air and financed by the Vatican.

3) "there're (sic) basically two paths". Er, what "two paths" would that be... and "there're" basically two- According to WHOM?

http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law

Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology
© Katharine M. J. Osborne

The definition of the word "theory" in the context of science is sometimes hotly argued by non-scientists

The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.

The line between theory and hypothesis can become blurry when it comes to very active and new areas of science. For instance, M-theory, an extension of string theory, is a body of knowledge that attempts to define how everything in the universe works, explaining quantum phenomena along with cosmological and everything in between. Unfortunately, M-theory is largely unproven. It makes a lot of sense (as far as descriptions of the quantum world make sense), but hasn't really been tested yet. M-theory can be more precisely be described as a hypothetical theory.

Not the TRUTH!!!

Here is a quote from a preacher here already. He's says we are denying freedom of speech. NOOO....we are not. This is going to be really weird.

"But Mickey Carter, pastor at Landmark Baptist Church in Haines City, said the revisions will be a disservice to students.

"He said there should be a balance between both intelligent design and evolution.

"We are denying freedom of ideas, speech and shutting down one side," Carter said. "The kids ought to be able to study both sides of it so we don't just turn out a bunch of rubber-stamped robots in the classroom."

Carter said that science is limited in its ability to determine every fact. "When it's all said and done, folks just don't give God enough credit," Carter said. "Too many things on this world cannot just be an accident. You've got to give some credit to some intelligence."

Since when have teachers had freedom of speech in the classroom? Outside school, a science teacher can say whatever they like, but in class they have a job to do: teaching science, which places constraints on what they can spend their time talking about.

"The kids ought to be able to study both sides of it so we don't just turn out a bunch of rubber-stamped robots in the classroom."

"Because that's our job!"

to teach their students that the earth isn't flat. I bet members of the Flat-Earth-Society are already lobbying against it.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-miket2507oct25,0,3076905.column?coll=orl_news_local_orange_util

"We are moving toward intelligently designed science curriculum in public schools.

And by that I mean we are leaving intelligent design out of classrooms.

By golly, Florida is evolving.

The state finally and officially plans to embrace the theory that our ancestors once picked fleas off each other and ate them.

We may actually use the word "evolution" in our education standards. All we have now is a single reference about mutation and natural selection leading to adaptations in species.

Evolution in Florida is like Lord Voldemort in Hogwarts. It is that which cannot be named."

Cant we just fiddle with the bible a bit to make evolution fit into it? shut these bleeding lunatics up?

of biology, I would hope we would teach it in science class. Not teaching it would be like not teaching conservation of energy in physics class or neglecting to cover the periodic table in chemistry. No to "Intelligent Design" IDiots!

Don't worry when the mothership arrives, some folks heads will explode with confusion.