OK, so we got one nasty shocker out of the way last night when the Associated Press clued us in to Taylor County’s anti-evolution resolution. Let’s move on to see what’s in store for us the day after the final public meeting about the new draft of the state science standards in Miramar.
A Palm Beach Post columnist goes the satire route and offers to expand that push to teach “other theories.” Why should evolution be the only target of these efforts?
Magnetism
Old concept: magnetic attraction because of bipolarity of ferrous objects.
New way to be taught: “filled with the spirit of the Creator’s force field.”
Gravity
Old concept: the force that pulls objects toward the center of the Earth.
New way to be taught: “which explains why angels need wings to maintain their hovering.”
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Old concept: Heat will not flow spontaneously from an object of lower temperature to an object of higher temperature.
New way to be taught: “which explains why newcomers to hell don’t make the nonbelievers already there burn at increasingly hotter temperatures.”
The tenth newspaper editorial to caution the state board of education not to be foolish about evolution appears in the Daytona Beach News-Journal.
There is a lot at stake in the “e” word, though. If Florida and its communities want to market themselves as capable of supporting biotechnology, medical technology or other sciences, they cannot do so with fuzzy science curricula. They have to teach to the best standards of other states and nations, which include evolution.
The Sun Sentinel reports that there were about 75 or so people at the Miramar meeting. Those blind to the fact that inserting religion into the biology classroom is a Constitutional violation, and those that obviously haven’t a clue what evolution is had their say. But then a very smart teenager said about all that needs to be said:
Shawn Greene, 16, and a senior at South Broward High School, said: “It’s very scary that these people are allowed to teach. Evolution, although it has been said to be a theory, it is basically been proven. Creationism is a religious concept, an abstract one at that.”
The Miami Herald took advantage of U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings’ visit to Florida to find out what she thinks about the teaching of evolution. Did she stand up for solid science education? No.
Spellings said it isn’t her job to make policy decisions and said it was up to people such as new Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith. When asked whether the nation’s top education official has a position on whether evolution should be a part of science standards, Spellings replied: “No, I don’t.”
The Miami Herald also reported on the Miramar meeting. There were no new revelations, just the usual back and forth. It’s good to see some authoritative voices speaking up and being noticed, though.
”There should not be a debate,” said Gerry Meisels, director of the Coalition for Science Literacy at the University of South Florida and member of the drafting committee for the new standards in the state. “It’s very counterproductive for our children, it’s counterproductive for our country, it’s counterproductive for our future. This is like the Middle Ages.”
…
Earlier this month, the National Academy of Sciences released [a report] called ”Science, Evolution, and Creationism” that argues that creationism does not belong in science class.
Mentioned above, “A Palm Beach Post columnist goes the satire route and offers to expand that push to teach “other theories.—
Granted, this may be too much of an [i]”open door”[/i] approach, and invite in everything under the sun. Intelligent Design, or simply intervention, should be considered, however. Given the evidence of specified complexity in the DNA coding sequences, it remains a [i]valid[/i] hypothesis.
OH Lee! I’m so proud you didn’t say theory! 🙂
Given the evidence of specified complexity in the DNA coding sequences, it remains a valid hypothesis.
Not quite. To be a valid hypothesis, it must be both verifiable and falsifiable. ID fails both of these tests, as it relies on the discovery of a theistic being, which cannot be falsified and most likely cannot be verified.