There have been a handful of public forums across the state concerning the state science standards, the most recent being in Orlando (that meeting was taped and can be seen here.) Thousands of comments were collected when the proposed new standards were available on the Internet. The standard’s writers and framers, who are experts themselves, sought the input of various other science and curriculum experts. The state board of education members have been flooded with correspondence on the matter. County school boards have passed resolutions for and against the standards. The news has been full of stories, opinion columns, and letters to the editor. Various organizations from across the state and even across the country have submitted letters and resolutions.
Lot’s of input, wouldn’t you think? Plenty of information to sift through when trying to make a very important decision.
Apparently not.
Despite all of the above, the final decision could be swayed by 20 people: 10 for the standards as is, and 10 against the inclusion of evolution in the standards. The board of education is allotting about an hour to public input during their meeting Feb. 19. Up until now, there was not going to be any public comment at all. Something changed, though, here less than a week before the meeting. What happened? I can’t say for certain.
What’s tricky here is that speakers will be allowed on a first come, first served basis. How in the world is that going to be controlled? How do we know that someone won’t sign up as “pro evolution in the standards” but then actually be from the opposite side?
It’s going to be a circus.
I will be there to relay all the excitement to you. I am attending the meeting and I hope to live-blog the event. So, stay glued to your computers Feb. 19 starting about 8:30 a.m., or even earlier. It’s going to be a wild ride.
Hearing public testimony on Feb. 19 is unfair to those who have already testified at previous oral hearings. Many of those who have already testified at oral hearings went to a lot of time and trouble to testify. Some traveled hundreds of miles and some took time off from work. Their testimony is now going to be drowned out by new public testimony at the Feb. 19 meeting of the state board of education. Of course, these people who have already testified can go to the time and trouble of appearing at the Feb. 19 meeting but they might not get a chance to testify — the maximum number of public speakers is 20.
Maybe what the board of education should do instead is just make a tentative decision on the proposed state standards and then have a public comment period for that decision.
Here are my minimal recommendations for changes to the evolution education standards:
(1) Insert the word “theory.”
(2) Delete or modify the following introduction:
Evolution and Diversity: A. Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence. B. Organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history. C. Natural selection is the primary mechanism leading to evolutionary change.
Statement “A” is a matter of opinion and arguably a worldview and students should not be tested on this statement. Statement “B” applies only to cladistic taxonomy — the statement is not true about Linnaean taxonomy, which is still in widespread use. Statement “C” is wrong — it is like saying that hydrogen is the “primary” element in water molecules. Natural selection is not enough — genetic change is also needed for natural selection to act upon.
IMO it would also be nice to add a statement about teaching both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution theory.
It appears that Mr. Fafarman is exactly what somebody warned about in an e-mail message I recieved earlier today that addressed the issue of making sure that the folks signing up as standards “supporters” for next Tuesday’s testimony are not wolves in sheeps clothing.
The most cursory perusal of Mr. Fafarman’s website reveals his true position should anybody have thought that he represents some kind of middle ground.
One obvious difference between those who support science and the new standards and those who do not is that those who do not are willing and capable of going into stealth mode to spread their propaganda by any means necessary.
It is just so depressing to me that no other western country suffers this disconnect.
–“It appears that Mr. Fafarman is exactly what somebody warned about in an e-mail message I recieved earlier today that addressed the issue of making sure that the folks signing up as standards ‘supporters’ for next Tuesday’s testimony are not wolves in sheeps clothing.”–
Like the guy said in the TV ad: “you know, you are really paranoid.”
–“The most cursory perusal of Mr. Fafarman’s website reveals his true position should anybody have thought that he represents some kind of middle ground.”–
Well, I do represent a middle ground — I never said that evolution should not be taught in the public schools.
Science facts are not changed by public opinion – but if they were, we could all vote that the theory of gravity is no longer fact and we could ask Larry to jump off of the ‘Golden Gate’ to prove it, because that’s what the public wants.
(I chose the ‘GG’ by the way because he is in CA. and I figure it would be a lot easier for him to get there)
Well, I do represent a middle ground
…only in your own deluded world. Your “middle ground” has already gotten one comment thread closed, thanks to its over-the-top inanity. But, let’s not dwell on that subject. 😉
I never said that evolution should not be taught in the public schools.
No, but you are insistent about diluting the relevance of evolution in biology, from a ground-breaking concept to a hokey “theory”. This isn’t middle-ground, it is a throw-back to the 18th century. Next, you’ll be wanting to revert chemistry to alchemy, and medicine to blood letting.
Gosh, what a shame( thread closed)! Since I am a direct desendant of a Holocaust survivor ( yes, a red herring). Keep on keepin’ on Larry. With people like you, we’ll be partying like it’s 1299 real soon.