The St. Petersburg Times posted a story this evening outlining what was found in e-mails the newspaper obtained via public records requests from the Florida Department of Education. The purpose of the public records request? To find out where the last minute new state science standards option that featured the inclusion of the words “scientific theory” came from and why it was done.
The e-mails shed light on several developments in the still-simmering evolution debate that were never fully reported.
In the days leading up to the Feb. 19 vote, Smith and other DOE officials were scrambling to find a compromise, the e-mails show. And while they did not want to undermine the integrity of the standards, they were willing to push a politically driven alternative — or were themselves driven into pushing one — over the passionate objections of those who crafted them.
The urgent tone of many of the e-mails also sheds more light on just how close the Board of Education came to rejecting scientifically acclaimed science standards, and how key the compromise may have been to saving them.
…
The committee, dominated by scientists and science teachers, had spent months crafting the standards, using national and international models as guides. Many of its members were not happy with the turn of the events — and said so in a barrage of e-mails to DOE officials over the weekend.
…
“By caving in now, we are basically allowing majority vote to override facts, observation and evidence,” wrote University of South Florida chemistry professor Gerry Meisels. “We will never win a fight if we don’t fight. We may not win, but we owe it to our children and Florida’s future at least to try.”
Meisels signed off, “Gerry, a.k.a. Don Quixote.”
A.K.A – Don Quixote, now that’s funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote
It didn’t bother me that evolution was not called a “scientific theory” in the original science standards. What did bother me and continues to bother me is that stupid statement in the standards that says that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” That simply isn’t true. That statement was maliciously put in there as a calculated insult against critics of Darwinism. I am an engineer and I have taken dozens of courses in engineering, science and mathematics and I can tell when something is a fundamental underlying concept and when it is not.
This overemphasis on evolution has become a big problem. In the PBS NOVA TV program about the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, former Dover school board member Bill Buckingham said,
“In looking at the biology book the teachers wanted, I noticed that it was laced with Darwinism. I think I listed somewhere between 12 and 15 instances where it talked about Darwin’s theory of evolution. It wasn’t on every page of the book, but, like, every couple of chapters, there was Darwin, in your face again. And it was to the exclusion of any other theory. ”
— from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html
I am an engineer and I have taken dozens of courses in engineering, science and mathematics and I can tell when something is a fundamental underlying concept and when it is not.
I don’t see what your engineering classes have to do with biology.
Larry, please show you scientific evidence that supports your statement that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.†That simply isn’t true.
You have yet to offer any valid scientific proof that evolution is not the underlying concept of all biology.
You seem to be following the IDiots play book. Keep squawking about how evolution isn’t this or that and never offer any other valid point of view or evidence.
PC-Bash Says:
>>>>>> I am an engineer and I have taken dozens of courses in engineering, science and mathematics and I can tell when something is a fundamental underlying concept and when it is not.
I don’t see what your engineering classes have to do with biology.
Sorry, I forgot to not use the inequality signs — that caused my comment to be cut off. Here is my comment again.
PC-Bash Says:
–“I am an engineer and I have taken dozens of courses in engineering, science and mathematics and I can tell when something is a fundamental underlying concept and when it is not.
I don’t see what your engineering classes have to do with biology. “–
I know something about biology because I took a year of biology and a year of human physiology in high school. My numerous engineering, science, and mathematics courses gave me numerous examples of important principles and how those principles relate to the different subjects, making me a good judge of when something may be considered to be a single fundamental underlying principle of a whole subject. There were very few such underlying principles, even in narrow fields such as heat transfer analysis. In heat transfer analysis, only heat conduction in solids has a single fundamental underlying principle, Fourier’s Law. Calculus has what is called a “fundamental theorem of calculus,” but that theorem does not apply to differential calculus.
firemancarl Says:
–“You have yet to offer any valid scientific proof that evolution is not the underlying concept of all biology.”–
I don’t even remember studying evolution in high school biology in the 1960’s, and a lot of high school biology students today don’t study evolution. That is all the proof I need that evolution is not the fundamental underlying concept of all of biology.
I am not a big fan of Intelligent Design — in my opinion, the theory of co-evolution of total co-dependence — e.g., the co-evolution of bees and flowering plants — is a stronger argument against evolution. In such co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. When corresponding co-dependents traits in both organisms are fatal in such absence, co-evolution by means of random mutation is virtually impossible, and even when the co-dependent traits are not fatal or harmful in such absence, the appearance of only one of the corresponding co-dependent traits would be of no benefit in natural selection. Also, there may be irreducibly complex multiple sets of pairs of corresponding traits involving multiple organs — for example, a bee must not only be able to digest nectar but must also be able to find the flowers.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm
Larry you said
I don’t even remember studying evolution in high school biology in the 1960’s, and a lot of high school biology students today don’t study evolution. That is all the proof I need that evolution is not the fundamental underlying concept of all of biology.
With all due respect Larry. Just because you weren’t taught something in the 60s and many high schoolers don’t spend a lot of time on it now hardly makes up your case. Here in Florida they teach a bit about evolution but in order not to make the fundies mad it was called changes over time
there may be irreducibly complex
That idea , well anything being irreducibly complex, has been quite shot out of the water. I will post more about that later
As I have said before, just because something is or is not taught in high school doesn’t limit its’ value. ie; gravity or quantum physics.
Continuing for Larrys’ edification
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/eppur_si_muove.php
Go watch the one titled F1-F0 ATPase; it’s a beautiful example of a highly efficient molecular motor, and it’s the kind of thing the creationists go ga-ga over. It’s complex, and it does the same rotary motion that the bacterial flagellum does; it has a little turbine in the membrane, a stream of protons drives rotation of an axle, and the movement of that axle drives conformation changes in the surrounding protein that promote the synthesis of ATP. It’s a molecular machine all right. Makes a fellow wonder if possibly it’s “irreducible”, doesn’t it?
Well, it’s not. It can be broken down further and it still retain that rotary motion.
My numerous engineering, science, and mathematics courses gave me numerous examples of important principles and how those principles relate to the different subjects, making me a good judge of when something may be considered to be a single fundamental underlying principle of a whole subject.
Engineering and mathematics are much different than the study of nature and life. The former were designed by humans, follow rigorous rules and principles. Biology, on the other hand, is the study of life. It follows what we observe about life. Life was not designed, it evolved over time. Life is still evolving. In fact, one thing shared between all species of life on this planet is evolution. I’d think that makes a very strong case for making evolution the fundamental principle underlying all of biology.
My numerous engineering, science, and mathematics courses gave me numerous examples of important principles and how those principles relate to the different subjects, making me a good judge of when something may be considered to be a single fundamental underlying principle of a whole subject.
Actually Larry, this is nothing more than an argument based on personal incredulity.
Since you don’t a have a degree in biology or even evolutionary biology, you are not a good judge.
Besides, I took some engineering and blue print classes for my fire officer program. They do not however make me an expert in any of those fields.
Well one thing is for sure. Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.
firemancarl Says:
–“Since you don’t a have a degree in biology or even evolutionary biology, you are not a good judge.”–
I know enough about biology to know that evolution is not “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” As I said, that statement was put in there as a calculated insult.
Exactly right. Gregor Mendel studied genetics without the theory of evolution.
Hmn. And yet the number one Darwinist apologist, Eugenie Scott of the evolutionary activists organization “National Center for Science Education” is an anthropologist. Go figure.
William and Larry
Congrats! You just pointed out that the fundamental concept of Evolution also underlies Anthropology (and it does!) 😉
The world is changing. Our children need to be prepared for it so many ways that none of us can even imagine. I predict that they will need to use the tool of evolution to survive and thrive in that future. Stop trying to stand in their way!
Eugenie Scott didn’t compose the Florida science standards.
Larry despite your incessant carping that evolution is not the underlying… of biology, you still have yet to show any peer reviewed scientific research to support your claim. Either show the proof or accept you are wrong.
William,
SO, Mendel study genetics but did it without evolution and that makes evolution false? Nope, what it does is show that Mendel did great work but his work was incomplete and with the advent of evolutionary biology, his work gained more ground.
William Wallace, you get -20 points for this attempted strawman/red herring
Hmn. And yet the number one Darwinist apologist, Eugenie Scott of the evolutionary activists organization “National Center for Science Education†is an anthropologist. Go figure.
William –
Hmn. And yet the number one Darwinist apologist, Eugenie Scott of the evolutionary activists organization “National Center for Science Education†is an anthropologist. Go figure.
Wow. This is breathtakingly inane. So, are you convinced that anthropology, the study of the development and evolution of humans, has nothing to do with biology? If so, then I think you have effectively demonstrated your own ignorance.
Larry –
I know enough about biology to know that evolution is not “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.†As I said, that statement was put in there as a calculated insult.
Apparently, you don’t know enough about biology, because you have missed the point. Evolution is key to understanding biology, it unifies and completes the field.
Also, unless you have some written or other evidence to the contrary, you are only attempting to conjecture the motivations to add this to the standard. Of course, you could claim to be a mind reader, although I highly doubt that this would help your case any. 😉
William Wallace Says:
–“Gregor Mendel studied genetics without the theory of evolution.”–
Jonathan Wells says in his book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design” (pages 80-81) that “Darwinists steal credit for scientific breakthroughs to which they contributed nothing†and calls it a form of “intellectual larceny.†He says,
” . .most of the fundamental disciplines in modern biology were pioneered by scientists who lived before Darwin was born. These pioneers include the sixteenth-century anatomist Andreas Vesalius, the sixteenth-century physiologist William Harvey, and the seventeenth-century botanist John Ray. They include the seventeenth-century founders of microbiology, Robert Hooke and Anton van Leeuwenhoek; the eighteenth-century founder of systematics, Carolus Linneaus; and the eighteenth-century founder of modern embryology, Caspar Friedrich Wolff. Even paleontology, which Darwinists now treat as theirs, was founded before Darwin’s birth by Georges Cuvier.”
— and —
.”Generations of breeders have been darwined. Mendel has been darwined. Jenner and Semmelweis have been darwined. Fleming, Florey, Chain, and Waksman have been darwined. So have the real pioneers of modern biology. They’ve all been darwined.”
Wells forgot to mention Louis Pasteur.
Part of the problem is that biologists have an inferiority complex as a result of the kind of attitude expressed by Lord Rutherford: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” As a result of this inferiority complex, biologists have been waging a prestige war against other branches of science by boasting that biology has something that the other branches don’t have, a grand central overarching principle, evolution.
Wow. If you honestly believe the whole “prestige war” thing, then there is nothing rational that anyone here can say to convince you otherwise. You obviously have a strong dislike for biology, Larry. Perhaps a biologist slighted you in college, stole your girlfriend or something… I don’t know. However, your irrational hatred for biology and biologists must stem from something.
You guys are on the wrong side of the issues. You also probably believe in man made global warming, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, animal rights, big government, anti-business legislation, etc. You all are probably on the public dole – never have run a business, hate the Judeo-Christian faith, but will want tolerance for other ‘religions’, anti Israel, pro Palestinian, United nation adherents more than the United States Constitution, etc. Most of you are probably democrats although a few republicans are probably among your ranks. I could go on for several pages and you would have to admit its true – we all know it.
We all know that you all console one another here the misery of your vain thoughts. You try vainly to disprove the existance in your Maker by your theories. That is because you do not want to acknowledge your accountability to Him. This is spoken by the wisest One. It is those who crucified Him that have the same mentality. It is He who will have the last laugh.
PSALMS CHAPTER 2
1 ¶ Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
10 ¶ Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Wow. I just can’t make this stuff up. It’s sad that Man is representative of the ID movement.
Out of your own mouth.
A silent admission.
Actually, your own bigoted statements have been made out of your own mouth. You launch stereotypes and sneer at people who follow real science, because your own personal prejudices are always right at the surface. People who don’t adhere to your own narrow world view must be all the same, and must all be “them”.
All that your statements reflect is your own ignorance.
Your refusal to deny speaks volumes.
Look up the word bigotry. I’m stating facts which you can’t disprove. You fit the definition of bogotry by your multitude of religous bigotted comments throughout all the blogs on this site. Bigotry is the intolerance you show towards the facts of ID.
Man, you said I’m stating facts which you can’t disprove.
Uh, what facts? You quoted the bible and you made general statements about what you think the our make up is.
Gosh Man, when I see you write crapola like that, al I can find solace in are these words from God Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
No solace for you in that statement.
I’m stating facts which you can’t disprove.
Ad hominem attacks don’t count as facts, sorry.
Bigotry is the intolerance you show towards the facts of ID.
What facts would those be, Man? Define ID for me in terms of its facts.
Bigotry is the intolerance Man shows towards the facts of the FSM.
FSM Expelled …
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=vaULFAZMK1o
Don’t you honestly think that if there was a such thing as your god that he would strike everyone down who didn’t believe as a lesson to all?
Man, the faith you represent is one of the oldest forms of institutionalized bigotry in the history of humankind. The concept of looking down on non-believers as something “lesser” and “inferior” to your “elite” flock of faithful promotes not only racial superiority (more of an old testament thing with all the references to Jewish tribes and bloodlines as “chosen” and the indiscriminant killing of those who did not belong) but ideological superiority as well.
Then we have you, Man, who comes in here screaming bigotry and eugenics when in fact your own bible extols the glory of executing entire populations of non-Jewish tribes and torturing non-believers for those same reasons. Hypocrisy runs wild in most religions and you are a prime example.
He nearly struck all down in the flood, Fire.
On a lighter note for a sec. I’ve been digging around and made a list of the
22 smiley/emoticons that are supported by WordPress, so they should all work here. We should be able to wear this one 🙄 right out.
Check it out HERE
Karl you have things upside down. It’s the arrogant and proud that God resists. He loves the humble. Those who say there is no God have done abominable things. Those who say there is no God are arrogant and proud.
He nearly struck all down in the flood, Fire.
Yep, and he could beat the smelly valley people cause they had chariots of iron. Go figure 🙄
er, I mean couldn’t
I guess Karl you would support the terrorists who use young women, with down syndrome, who strap them with bombs to blow up innocent women and children. I guess you wouldn’t want anyone to destroy such people would you ?
Those who say there is no God have done abominable things. Those who say there is no God are arrogant and proud.
So… it’s abominable to not blindly follow a book written thousands of years ago? 🙄
So, do you believe that the crusaders were pious then, since they followed their book? Do you deny that they did abominable things in the name of your god? 😈
Yeah… I think it’s time someone bans Man. He doesn’t even seem to have a point, he is just trolling for attention here.
There are those who say there IS a God, and who are just as arrogant, proud, murderous, and ruthless. And believe me, throughout history, their numbers exceed the number of arrogant atheists. Hitler was a prime example, and he thought he was doing God’s work, but his actions are considered abominable by both atheists and the religious alike.
According to your bible, god doesn’t just resist the arrogant and proud. He would even punish and torture the faithful and humble to test their loyalty. Even a glance back at your own home town was enough to warrant being transmuted into a pillar of salt.
Karl –
Indeed, lest we forget the story of Job.
I guess Karl you would support the terrorists who use young women, with down syndrome, who strap them with bombs to blow up innocent women and children. I guess you wouldn’t want anyone to destroy such people would you ?
I guess Karl you would support the terrorists who use young women, with down syndrome, who strap them with bombs to blow up innocent women and children. I guess you wouldn’t want anyone to destroy such people would you ?
Uh dude, what planet did this non sequitir come from???
PC, wots going on with your posts?
Does everyone elses page look weird?
hmmn …
moderator … ??
I try to let these threads work themselves out without a bunch of moderating. I don’t want to be accused of “expelling” anyone’s views. However, it does everyone a disservice when the conversation strays too far away from general science and science education subjects, and instead gets neck deep into religion. I understand some discussion of religion because it does relate directly to many people’s anti-science views. But the religion being discussed here is just too far off into left field.
I am closing this thread’s comments.
Furthermore, to Man: I anticipate banning you should you saturate the threads with your blatant preaching again. I don’t care if you want to mention your faith in some relevant way to the ongoing conversation, but quoting a bunch of bible passages and accusing everyone here of being against God in some way will get you the boot.