| Fla. educators to teach evolution as theory, not settled fact – On Deadline – USATODAY.com — Here we go again. From here it will trend towards alternative theories, then creation science, then the Bible as sole arbiter. |
Students in Florida must be taught that evolution is a theory and not a settled fact, according to standards that the State Board of Education just approved in Tallahasee.
“A panel of 68 experts, heavy with science teachers and scientists, drew up detailed, age-specific standards that described evolution as the basic ‘concept underlying all of biology.’ The standards said evolution was supported by ‘multiple forms of scientific evidence,'” The News-Press, a fellow Gannett paper, says. “In a series of public hearings, several conservative religious leaders and parents objected to evolution being ‘the’ accepted standard. The compromise language approved today cites ‘the scientific theory of evolution,’ making it officially a theory rather than a settled fact.”
Here’s “fiss” used as a verb:
The theory of how nuclear fission works is probably not “provable,” but that some atoms can be made to fiss is an accepted fact.
The theory of how evolution works may not be “provable” either, but that creatures evolve is no longer in doubt.
Take that, you damn Jeebus.
:¬D
#56 Hillary C. wrote, “To deny there is a God is just plan [sic] foolish. Because you can’t explain Him doesn’t mean He is not real. You can’t see air, but there is circumstantial and scientific (Proven by experimentation) evidence it is there.”
Absolutely correct, and it’s that evidence you refer to that convinces me to believe in air. Before accepting any of the literally thousands of descriptions of gods that have been invented over the years, often to explain phenomena that end up having rather more mundane causes, let’s wait until we have some tiny shred of evidence that incontrovertibly points to the existence of a god.
There are many different theologies claiming exclusive connections with divine power, yet they obviously can’t all be true, and I consider it highly likely that none of them is. In any case, even if you instinctively believe in a Creator, how can you possibly choose amongst the conflicting definitions? Only actual evidence can help us make that choice, although the lazy among us will usually choose the first god concept they were taught as a child. I used to be just that lazy myself.
Evolution is theory like all science, but it is darn sure more accurate than the concept of an all powerful god breathing life into a lump of dirt, pulling out his rib while he’s asleep and making a female version, then giving them a fruit tree but telling them to not eat from it and a talking snake with legs tempts the woman so they get tossed out of paradise.
Yeah I’ll believe that.
I can see that there will be a day within my lifetime where the average education of a kid somewhere in Africa will be better than the average education of a kid in the United States.
Self.Foot=>shoot
pj
#45 & #47 and whomever might “know”–isn’t it pretty obvious that if the universe started from a small point and was very hot and then cooled as it expanded and went from pure energy to forming matter and that the heavier elements only form in stars and then get distributed by super novae THAT life obviously started from the chemical combination of inert chemicals and slowly evolved from there a la post #50.
Now if in the beginning there was only non-life, chemicals and such, and after a time, there was life, THEN “obviously” life formed from the preexisting chemicals/conditions?
Now, to say there is no proof I think is again a linguistic problem with the term “proof.” Not a mathematical proof, just a logical proof with NO OTHER explanation even possible?
Close enough.
Evolution can stand on it’s own weight. Whether taught as “fact” or “theory” doesn’t really matter too much.
Science exists to question things. The evidence points to evolution as settled fact and in the end it is only needs to be explained.
Opinion junkies rely too much on how things are portrayed.
Portraying evolution as “fact” won’t make someone believe it.
It is not important how evolution is portrayed, but rather the important part is that it is explained.
At the end of the day, evolution is solidly grounded by observation and study of organic life.
Explaining the body of evidence that forms the theory of evolution is what important. All science must be explained.
To those who actually worry about such things, one should take comfort that there is no observational evidence contrary to the theory of evolution. Meanwhile, there is no observational evidence in favor of the “prevailing” creationist concepts.
Evolution is only a theory because we don’t have time machines to conclusively prove it, despite the large body of supporting evidence. This differs from the world being round, because we can directly observe/prove this.
Let science do it’s job; to explain prevailing scientific beliefs via the supporting evidence and quit worrying about trivial matters such as whether or it is “fact” or “theory”.
#52 – I don’t understand why evolution cannot be part of God’s plan for us,
Because there is no God?
#57 – If we evolved from monkeys, there would be no monkeys left alive.
This is exactly the statement that explains why we should not debate creationists and/or other religious zealots.
Be it willful ignorance or outright stupidity, there is not reason to spend the majority of the dialog on science 101 beating back the bullshit these people spout.
We are never going to succeed in teaching them because either they refuse to learn or can’t… either way, they should be ignored in the debate and in politics, so the the civilized and educated world can get on with the business of progress.
#35/4 – If we cannot create Idols, then Simon, Randy and Paula are in deep doodoo!
Wasn’t the guy in the middle the bass player for ZZ Muffin-Top?
#68–zefyr ==your own post demonstrates the “threat” science is under when you confirm: “I know when I’m out in the wild looking up at the stars I always get a feeling somewhat a kin to “This is amazing beyond belief” and “Who designed this incredibly interdependent system of interactions that define our universe and life as we know it?”
and what you counter those “feelings” with is what you learned in school.
NOW–just what would you counter those feelings with if what you learned in school was that an Intelligent Designer who we aren’t allowed to call God, made this perfect heaven just for us?
I think you would not be born again, because you would be brain washed from day one.
I don’t often read comments on sites like these, and having done so here, my instincts are confirmed. The dopiness of this group should give Mr. Dvorak pause to wonder what is it in his schtick that draws so large a percentage of mental midgetry?
#69, OFTLO,
Because there is no God?
This got me thinking. If a dog looks in a mirror, does he see a god?
Would that make for a religious experience, or a dog’s hind end?
When a dog chases his tail, is he trying to get a hold of his religion?
#74, roemun,
Good question. What kind of impulse drew you to this site, to this topic, and to comment? This specific topic is much better than most when the real wing nuts come out. We then get the religious assholes that post scripture telling we’re doomed or this is the way it is because “god” says so.
If you choose to join the discussion, great. If not, then don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out.
#74 roemun wrote, “The dopiness of this group should give Mr. Dvorak pause to wonder what is it in his schtick that draws so large a percentage of mental midgetry?”
Are you one of the mental and moral giants who believes that increased pain in childbirth is god’s curse upon all women for Eve’s sin? It must be true, for the Bible says so, and we dare not question the veracity of holy scripture.
#75 – This got me thinking.
I wish I could get the dumb posters thinking too. I imagine you were thinking long before I got out of bed this morning 🙂
#74 – roemun
“I don’t often read comments on sites like these, and having done so here, my instincts are confirmed. The dopiness of this group should give Mr. Dvorak pause to wonder what is it in his schtick that draws so large a percentage of mental midgetry?”
Well, if you popped in here hoping to find the friggin’ Third Vatican Council, I’m here to tell ya you’re barking up the wrong Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, girlfriend.
You know, this thread got me to thinking also ((sad really given the months I’ve been posting!)) and I wonder why we all think roemun is a religious nut bag. His complaint was most non-specific allowing us all only to project our worst fears. If he has only read read 1-2-3 threads, he could be thinking there are two few “real” scientists here.
I know I am always gratified when a real scientist posts here, even when its only to hand out the dip-dork award.
So, my better half (10%-?) says roemun was commenting on the fact that way too many people post facts/ideas without any back up==course, neither did he, so that was a bit of negative projection on his part.
I’d say this blog is much like life/religion/your mate==you pretty much get from it what you put into it, although some mates can be pretty contrarian.
I found a lovely photo, one that encapsulates all the brainless, smug, sneering of anti-evolutionists at their worst.
“Duh, yuk-yuk, them egghaids is so dumb, they think people is related ta ornges! Ain’t them scientists just dumb as all get-out? Anybody can tell a person don’t look nothin’ like a ornge! Yep, we shore is smarter than them know-it-alls!” 🙂
And the mouth-breathing clot in question is identified as a “former educator.” That might give you a hint about where Florida’s present-day paucity of brain function originates…
“Fla. educators to teach evolution as theory, not settled fact”
Probably because that is the current status. Like the theory of relativity. What’s the problem?
…bobbo – as always, I may be wrong – well, in theory, anyway – but apply a tiny dab of inductive logic to our Right Honorable Colleague roemun’s post, in light of the preponderance of posts in this thread taking issue with religious stupidity and illogic, and it is strongly indicated that those selfsame criticisms of the anti-evolutionists are the target of his or her mockery, which thereby gently bids us infer that a contemptuous disparagement of rational thought was intended as the informational payload of the post under discussion…
…or, of course, on the other hand, mayhap not, in a manner of speaking, in the sense of that not actually being the situation, as the case may be. One never know, do one? 🙂
“Probably because that is the current status. Like the theory of relativity. What’s the problem?”
The problem is using a term that means one precise thing to scientists and another, different thing to nonscientists.
That is what underlies the entire brouhaha. It is a theory, ONLY BY STRICT TECHNICAL DEFINITION. Joe Sixpack does not grasp the fine distinction between something that is the absolute, unshakable foundation of ALL LIFE SCIENCE, and something, as Andrew mentioned way back there, he thinks means “something you dreamt up after being drunk all night”.
To a scientist, to a philosopher, to a mathematician, to a lawyer, there is an extremely important technical difference between something being 99.999999999% proven and 100%. For the purposes of the remainder of the human race, there is NO DIFFERENCE.
Using the strict scientific term which they mistakenly assume to mean something different and incorrect, and which plays into the hands of the enemies of fact and reason, is NOT A GOOD THING. It does NOT PROMOTE EDUCATION OR UNDERSTANDING. It IMPEDES those things.
Get it yet? To those who know the extremely subtle difference it is formally and precisely identified as a “theory” which it will ALWAYS BE, EVEN WHEN 99.99999999999999999999999999% PROVEN. But to the nonscientifically-trained masses of humanity, it IS AS MUCH A FACT AS THE EXISTENCE OF THE SUN.
This is what children need drummed into their heads: ‘Yes, child, it is only called a theory, just by scientists, for special, exact reasons you don’t yet understand. For you, me and everyone else, it’s as genuine and undeniably a fact as your own existence.’
So, your original statement is faulty: “”Probably because that is the current status. Like the theory of relativity.”
Theory is the current, exact scientific status. NOT the status among humankind in general. They not only don’t understand the esoteric distinction, they have absolutely no need to. They need to understand that they must regard them as facts, which is what they effectively are, for 100% of their purposes.
#83–3HC==Well, when you carefully evaluate all the possibilities, including roemuns limited review of a few other threads of which we can only guess–and you discuss the pro’s and con’s of each cul de sac you enter and come up with diddlysquat, there’s no way I can contest your findings.
If one wanted to, which I always do when warranted.
No, I think we should encourage good folks like roemun to come here infrequently, read just a little bit, and then make a vague contentious insulting post. In fact, I look forward to them.
I might as well further comment that I saw a younger version of the guy you posted at #81 on tv this morning. Always looking for the minority view, I tried to watch “Beyond Theology – Science and Spirituality” and the guy starts off by saying he had advanced science degrees but somehow he just found the scientific process too limiting. WTF?–so I watched Beavis and Butt-Head from tapes with more interest.
There ya go. “Too limiting.” Jay-zus what an imbecile. What kind of cartoonish ego-trip it takes to say, “I find the combined output of many of the greatest minds ever to live, over thousands of years, to not agree with MY OPINION.”
Yeah, I suppose not being able to proudly and grossly misuse and misrepresent knowledge and reason could be regarded as “limiting” – not being able to make things up to fit your predetermined conclusions is another way of looking at it… 🙂
#84 3HC, you didn’t mention it in this discussion of probabilities, but something you wrote awhile back immediately resonated at the time with my own experiences. You mentioned that, when faced with two distinct possibilities, even with wildly disparate likelihoods, laymen all too often subconsciously accord them much closer to 50-50 probability. Thus, a scientist admitting a 0.00000001 probability is often *seen* as awarding it tossup status.
Well said, I thought to myself, and perhaps the best explanation for a slight overreach at times with words like “certainty” and “fact.” Maybe not 100% certain, but absolutely not a tossup either.
#84 the three headed kitty
While it is not in my nature to agree with you I have to say everything in post #84 is pretty much on the mark.
Except this part
“It is a theory, ONLY BY STRICT TECHNICAL DEFINITION”
I understand your attempt to explain to the obtuse dolts who will continue to believe that a magician snapped his fingers and we arrived. But it is a FACT. Evolution is an observational FACT!
There are several “theories” that describe methods by which this may have taken place but according to science…… Evolution is a FACT! Not a theory. This is a very sore spot for evolutionary biologists because the religious run around like a bunch of 5 year olds saying “It is just a theory. It is just a theory” When as you pointed out they don’t understand what a theory is and they are wrong to boot.
#86 – “Yeah, I suppose not being able to proudly and grossly misuse and misrepresent knowledge and reason could be regarded as “limiting” – not being able to make things up to fit your predetermined conclusions is another way of looking at it…”
Be careful, if you actually enforce limits, the global warming crowd will have to stand down.
#89–Mr Bloedump==your comment greatly parallels the evolution debate:
Global Warming is a FACT. It is observable and measurable.
The Theory of Anthromorphic Global Warming is just that–a theory.
A year ago the Ruplican Retards were denying Global warming the fact. Most have admitted it and now are going after the theory. Just like evolution and its the same crowd doing it.
Who should stand down?
Sorry, not a FACT. There was a brief warming period that many credible scientists are believe is already ended. A “fact” is the incredible polar ice growth observed this year that’s not getting reported. A “fact” is that CO2 was much higher in the past without the temperature being much higher. The difference with those going after AGW theory is they’re challenging it with observed “facts”.
AGW is not even a good theory because there’s too much faith involved. You can prove anything with AGW: don’t forget that we’re going to freeze to death from global warming.
#91, MrBloedshithead
A “fact” is that CO2 was much higher in the past without the temperature being much higher.
Can you prove that? Or, like your alter ego, iHotAir, are you just full of hot air?