john stemmer?–florida family counsel. religion is our opponents strawman. this is not about religion. talks about micro and macro. never observed macro. rats to bats but no ratbats. science must be reality. evidence against evolution must be taught. children being yanked from public schools!
paul — im last. scienctist and educator and father. help my son with his interest in science. we improve science with new dicoveries. that’s what the standards say. lots of evidence for evolution. faith at home. scince in class. help my son.
public hearing over.
martinez–bathroom break. laughter.
Opinions anyone?
John Stemberger is his name, chairman of http://florida4marriage.org/
John Stemberger is looking to do for Florida what John Calvert has done for Kansas. Interesting that he apparently had not heard about last week’s news concerning an ancient fossil bat with primitive characters. Well, not so much “interesting” as “par for the course”.
They’ll ignore the committee and go with the “compromise”.
Interesting that several of the anti-science people mentioned it was “redundant” or “a distinction without a difference”.
Well, then why put it in?
Liars.
Was not able to get a good video feed ever. How did anyone grade the presentations for both sides?
Come on Evolution, no Whammies!
Lou, what’s the compromise? Anything that singles out evolution is unconstitutional – apply it to all science or not at all.
Brandon, thanks so much for doing this.
I hope that they will focus on “The nature of Science” part of the standards, and realize that there is no conflict with what the “AcademicFreedom” people are pushing now.
What the last person mentioned was that critical thinking WAS already a part of the scientific process.
They apparently proposed some language on Friday night that would sprinkle “Scientific Theory” in front of every mention of evolution, from what I gather.
While accurate, the creationists want it in there to continue conflating the lay and professional definitions of “Theory”.
Does anyone know what this “academic freedom proposal” is or have a link to it?
The Stemberger comment that the pro-science side brought up religion does him no favors. All the alternatives he supports come directly from religiously motivated antievolution, and thus he is a participant in a cover-up. The whole history of antievolution shows it as a long-running confidence job where they step back incrementally from honest religious doctrine-boosting to progressive stealth wording to hide the same old content. Judge Jones saw this clearly in the KvD case, and commented about not wanting to preside over the trial that took it to the next level of cover.
AFAIK, the “academic freedom” proposal is where they paste in “the law of” in front of instances of “gravity” and “the scientific theory of” in front of “evolution” and various other concepts in the standards. That they call this the “academic freedom” proposal, though, indicates that they think that doing so will open the door to teachers bringing in the “weaknesses” material (AKA the same old tired, bogus antievolution arguments) without repercussion for such incompetence.