It took a while, but the true motivations behind the creationism bills (“academic freedom”) are starting to show. As “academic freedom” was tossed out there on the playing field it was touted as nothing more than “freedom” to teach the so-called “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. Those of us who have been following the history of the creationism movement over the years already know that it’s all BS.
In a quote up on the St. Petersburg Times education blog. Senator Storms says:
“We can test on evolution,” said Storms, a former high school English teacher. “But the students, after having heard all the evidence, should be able to arrive at their own conclusions. To do that, they have to have all the facts. Under this bill, if you have a teacher who is pro-evolution and every student is intelligent design … that teacher is safe to teach that as a theory.”
She just couldn’t help herself. You see the whole “academic freedom” sham is just the evolution of the creationism movement. Intelligent design was shot down in Dover, Pa. as unconstitutional because of its overtly religious roots and the fact that there is no science in it anywhere to be found. So, intelligent design was shoved into the closet along with the other failed creationist attempts over the years to get a toe into the classroom. “Academic freedom” is just a political tactic that picks up where intelligent design left off. Unfortunately for Storms, she trips over her words here and helps expose the not-so-secret strategy.
Hopefully, this whole mess will die off in the legislature. Forcing this into the courtroom will cost Florida taxpayers a bundle, just like it did in Pennsylvania. Are you writing letters and making phone calls about this?
Storms said, “if you have a teacher who is pro-evolution and every student is intelligent design … that teacher is safe to teach that as a theory.â€
Since when is the content taught in any class decided by student consensus? Especially in primary or secondary education classes? This doesn’t make any sense at all.
I think what she means is that this academic freedom bill would allow the teacher to teach whatever theory he/she believes in despite the overwhelming beliefs of the students in the class. She just gave an innocuous pro-evolution example to hide the fact that a teacher that teaches intelligent design in a class of pro-evolution students would also be protected under the bill.
Wait no lol, took it out of context… found the whole quote from another source…
It does raise several questions tho. You can’t realistically expect a classroom to be in consensus with regards to intelligent design or evolution. How then would a pro-evolution or pro-ID teacher decide what to teach?
Why have standards if the students or the teachers can decide what’s taught? The teachers are tasked to present what’s in the standards. Standards writers should be able to indentify any actual scientific controversies appropriate to grade level and decide whether to include them or not; there’s no authority given in the standards to teach ID or creation-science. Stick to the standards, which do not allow the spirit world or miracles (God did it) to be considered part of science. Putting religion into science–thus wrecking it–is what this whole fight is about.
–“It took a while, but the true motivations behind the creationism bills (â€academic freedomâ€) are starting to show. “–
In the courts, motivation is a factor in the “Lemon test,” which has fallen into disfavor, but is not a factor in the “endorsement test.”
–“Intelligent design was shot down in Dover, Pa. as unconstitutional because of its overtly religious roots and the fact that there is no science in it anywhere to be found. “–
The Dover decision is just an unreviewed decision of a single stupid federal judge:
(1) The ID-as-science section of the Dover opinion was ghostwritten by the ACLU.
(2) Judge Jones showed extreme prejudice against ID and the Dover defendants — regardless of whether or not ID is a religious concept — by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions. He said,
“. . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.”
— from http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html
IMO the courts should rule that the controversy over evolution is non-justiciable.
Keep talking Rhonda!!
To quote Lenny Frank:
“However, as I have long noted, fundamentalists are their own worst enemies, and their own incessant compulsion to attack “materialism”, “atheism”, “Darwinism” and “naturalism”, gives the lie to their claims to be non-religious. Intelligent designer “theory” is, as the Discovery Institute admitted from the beginning in its own internal documents, a legal and political strategy to “wedge” their religious opinions into public schools. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. It has the sole and only aim of advancing religion by attacking science’s presumed “atheism” and “materialism”. ID “theory” is nothing but an illegal advancement of religious beliefs, and IDers are flat-out lying to us when they claim otherwise.”
The agenda behind these bills has been exposed repeatedly.
Legislators and anyone with half-a-keyboard can find information straight from the mouths of the bills’ writers that debunk their deceitful words that these bills don’t have anything to do with religion. The 20 year goals in Discovery Institute’s Wedge Plan say it all: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html