Tampa Bay Online: Academic Anarchy
What Stein really meant to say is that the bill insulates teachers from being held accountable for their speech. One wonders whether Florida’s citizens really desire that public-school teachers have that type of protection, one to which few private-sector workers are entitled (and for good reason).
…
Principals are accountable to the government for the academic performance of their students, and yet the government is proposing another bill that will severely hamper the management flexibility of principals. This is accountability without autonomy, and it’s a recipe for failure.
…
In this particular case, Floridians should be especially wary. Academic-freedom bills, of all stripes, are generally terrible things. They proclaim to protect a persecuted class, but rarely is that verifiable.
The Storms and Hays proposal purports to shield public-school teachers who are vilified for questioning evolution’s tenets. But a significant number of such teachers simply doesn’t exist.
And what’s more, public-school educators, especially the most incompetent ones, already receive from their unions more job protection than they need or deserve.
The “Academic Freedom Act” is thoroughly flawed and is deserving of deft dismissal.
St. Petersburg Times: Floridians seem content in a state of ignorance
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859; it wasn’t until this February that Florida’s state Board of Education voted to allow teachers to utter the word “evolution.” But Sen. Ronda Storms, ever a vigilant foe of egghead secularism, has filed a bill to strike a blow for biblical science.
…
“I would love to know what the ‘scientific alternatives’ are,” says Joe Travis, evolutionary biologist and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at FSU. “I don’t know of any. Not unless I change my definition of ‘science’ to include the supernatural.”
…
Storms, Wise et al. insist their bill is also about freedom of speech. Why not throw the Word of God up against Darwin in biology class? Never mind that Genesis has differing accounts (Gen. 1:1-2:4 and 2:5-24 — check it out) of the creation. Never mind that knowledge of ancient Hebrew myth won’t go far in getting you a job at Scripps or Torrey Pines. Speaker of the House Marco Rubio claims he wants Florida to become the “Silicon Valley” of energy diversification and biotech industry. But he told the Florida Baptist Witness newspaper, “I don’t want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong.”
Which impulse will win out with the Republican leadership, Sunshine Silicon or Ain’t Kin to No Monkey? Here’s a hint: Check the poll numbers above. Our students don’t need no stinking science. They’ll have God. He’ll tell them all they need to know. And if they ever travel beyond the Floridian Theocracy, He’ll protect them from falling off the edge of the Earth.
I presume that this bill woud also allow a teacher to express and teach a scientific basis for Atheism within a classroom. Or any other such theory?
Two great articles. Thanks for posting those, Brandon.
Nothing like pandering by echo.
Exactly.
Once again, liberals don’t seem to get it. You can require and understand the theory of evolution (or of relativity) without holding it up as gospel.
Teachers who fail to impart knowledge that is required by state standards can of course be held accountable for failure to perform. But teachers who also point out some of the short comings should be applauded, not burned at the stake. This law will protect the latter from occurring.
So Willie, you would agree that they (Storms and the rest of those that seem to be so concerned about the children being exposed to controvery) should then extend the definition of this bill to also protect the job of any teacher at a fundamentalist private school that teaches the alternative theories to Biblical/Koranic literalism don’t you? After all, we want academic freedom for all don’t we, even those poor, misguided fundamentalist kids? Or are you too liberal for that?
This is an excellent argument against school vouchers.
But I am certainly against firing public school teachers just because they believe in the Theory of Evolution and the Flying spaghetti monster.
I would love to know what the ’scientific alternatives’
Easy, just ask Larry et al.!!!
@ Wm Wallace:
This would be true, assuming the hypothetical teacher pointed out an actual problem with a theory. However it is the opinion of the overwhelming number of professional biologists that evolution is upheld by nearly the best structure imaginable. In the second place, there are no alternatives that are upheld by a significant number of biologists. Assuming that there is a weakness in evolutionary theory is just silly and this is the reason creationists are treated as if they have nothing of substance to say.
In my opinion, a middle school or high school teacher who presents any statements regarding the existence of alternative theories to evolution would be acting in ignorance of professional standards.
The “lone voice in the wilderness” just can’t ever have a place in education. Particularly science education. So this law will only give schools with crippled science curricula an excuse to keep abusing their children’s futures.
Science is all about challenging the status quo and pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Will evolutionary theory change? It had better!
This just in:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/higher_education/index.html
I’m not sure exactly what this proposed amendment involves, but I’m taking this news as a bad omen.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 😥
Once again, liberals don’t seem to get it.
Nice way to paint with a broad brush, Willie. I hate to break it to you, but plenty of conservatives are ticked off by this legislative nightmare as well. Not all conservatives are fundamentalist / literalist IDiots. Personally, I think that Neil Boortz hit the nail on the head when he remarked on the nonsense going on in the Florida Legislature regarding this “academic freedom” fraud.
But teachers who also point out some of the short comings should be applauded,
So, teachers who jump outside of the script and teach from the standpoint of personal incredulity, proselytize a version of their religious dogma that does not include the word “god”, or teach children home-baked “theories” based on irreducible complexity (like Larry’s) should be allowed to do so with no oversight and no accountability? Would you want your kids to be taught about leprechauns, Wicca, or Buddhist concepts? The bill creates a loophole large enough to drive a Mack truck through.
Once again, liberals don’t seem to get it. You can require and understand the theory of evolution (or of relativity) without holding it up as gospel.
This is an incredible wide reaching ad hominem attack that not only serves no purpose, but also illustrates that you are capable of ad hoc reasoning.
Wow! – does this mean I can spend several weeks on an in-depth study of the Gaia Hypothesis if I pose it as an alternative to evolution? Its my personal favorite “earth centered” theory on how the Earths feedback systems work s a giant organism with us humans being cells (or warts) on the earth’s body. (we will leave out the Goddess part ) And all those evangelical children in my classes will learn all about! Cool! This sounds great – I can teach Gaia and no one can stop me! (and if they do I can sue!). I am sure glad my daughter has graduated and will not be at the mercy of whatever personal misinformation her science teachers can dredge up – with no consequences because they are covered by this law. Woo Hoo! Bring on the kooks!
Professor Myers did it again! LOL!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php
if they’re going to protect “alternative theories” then it also means they won’t be able to do anything when teachers point out he numerous flaws in intelligent design either oh wait… it’s only protection for idiots.
OT – IMO This is a great review of EXPELLED by a Christian blogger …
http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1243
PC-Bash driveled,
–“or teach children home-baked “theories†based on irreducible complexity (like Larry’s) “–
My “theory” about co-evolution is NOT based on irreducible complexity!!! See —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/03/scientific-theory-of-co-evolution.html
If I can believe my eyes, I think I saw where the Florida House passed a bill last week that prevents business owners from banning pistols on their own property. Please tell me this isn’t the same legislature you’re depending on to kill this ‘Academic Freedom’ nonsense.
My “theory†about co-evolution is NOT based on irreducible complexity!!!
Umm… Yes it is. You are claiming that the co-dependence between two species cannot be explained by evolution, that the complexity of the interaction between the two species cannot be reduced by evolution. By the very definition, this is irreducible complexity.
I understand your hesitance to use this term, since you want to believe that your “theory” is valid, but it is the same thing that Behe, Meyers, and Dembski is spewing, just a different example.
tim –
Not to get off-topic, but there is a different perspective to this law.
<offtopic>
Florida legislature has historically voted in favor of the Castle Doctorine. It already extended to people’s vehicles in Florida. People were already allowed to carry guns in their cars. Before, people had to weigh the risk of defending themselves and taking a position that prevented them from doing so. Now, people can safely store a gun in their car for self-defense. The point of this law is not to allow guns on the worksite. The point of this law is to allow people to carry guns in their cars for when they aren’t at the worksite (e.g. back and forth to/from work) without being penalized by their employer for doing so. In order to do this, they must have a concealed carry permit, which means that they are registered with the FBI and had to take a gun safety course including live firing. Not just anyone is allowed to do this.
</offtopic>
PC-Bash said,
–“My “theory†about co-evolution is NOT based on irreducible complexity!!!
Umm… Yes it is. You are claiming that the co-dependence between two species cannot be explained by evolution, that the complexity of the interaction between the two species cannot be reduced by evolution. By the very definition, this is irreducible complexity.
I understand your hesitance to use this term, since you want to believe that your “theory†is valid, but it is the same thing that Behe, Meyers, and Dembski is spewing, just a different example. “–
What in the hell is “Umm” supposed to mean?
No, it is not the same thing that Behe, Meyer, and Dembski are “spewing.” To them, “irreducible complexity” means that a required mutation in a single organism is too complex to be likely to occur all at one time. The Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence is a barrier to co-evolution even when the required individual mutations in the two organisms are not individually irreducibly complex — the Fourth Corollary says, “the Fundamental Theorem of Co-evolution of Total Co-dependence may be a barrier to evolution even where irreducible complexity is not.” And I do not hesitate to use the term “irreducible complexity” — the Third Corollary says, “two totally co-dependent organisms may have irreducibly complex sets of pairs of co-dependent traits involving multiple organ systems in one or both organisms — for example, a bee must be able to both digest nectar and find flowers.” See —
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/03/scientific-theory-of-co-evolution.html
Anyway, I thought that you were not going to discuss what you called a “crackpot theory based on personal incredulity.”
PC
<ot>
I just remembered about the review you were going to do of EXPELLED. Have you submitted it, and I missed it because it is on a dying thread somewhere?
😕
tim said,
–“If I can believe my eyes, I think I saw where the Florida House passed a bill last week that prevents business owners from banning pistols on their own property.”–
Florida was the first state to pass a controversial “Stand Your Ground” law (also called a “Shoot First” law) that says that people threatened with violence in a place where they have a right to be have no duty to retreat (even when a path of retreat is clearly open). This law is not part of the “castle doctrine” (from the saying that a man’s home is his castle) because this law applies to public places as well as your own home.
This discussion may seem a little off-topic, but IMO it does show the willingness of governments to pass controversial legislation that might have only minority public support. IMO these “academic freedom” bills may have widespread public support because opinion polls show that a large segment of the public feels that both the strengths and the weaknesses of evolution should be taught.
…the Fourth Corollary says…
First, isn’t it a little pretentious to call something that hasn’t gone through the scientific process a “fundamental theorem” instead of a conjecture or hypothesis? You don’t even have a paper, yet you are cranking on about “fundamental theorems”. Heh.
Just because you minimize the definition of and then dismiss irreducible complexity doesn’t mean that your “theorem” is magically exempt from being called irreducible complexity. It is irreducible complexity, by any other name. Your example may be more elaborate and easier to refute, but it is IC all the same. You are just splitting this complexity between two species, and calling it “original”. I’ve seen more originality in the various ID “papers” that keep circulating, which is quite pathetic as they are not at all that original.
<offtopic>
This law is not part of the “castle doctrine†(from the saying that a man’s home is his castle)
Before this “Stand your ground” law, Florida already recognized that the castle doctrine extended to one’s car, in both case law, and in actual law.
</offtopic>
As for the support of the “academic freedom” law, I have seen two different polls on this with different results. In either case, dictating what should be taught in the science classroom isn’t really up to the public, it is up to the state board of education. The general public is not equipped with the background to dictate this. When I see the majority of Floridians with science degrees, I might concede this point. Of course, if the creationists lose, their next step will probably be to amend the state constitution, so it can come to a vote by the general public. *shudder*
DaveB –
I just remembered about the review you were going to do of EXPELLED. Have you submitted it, and I missed it because it is on a dying thread somewhere?
Actually, after reading Dawkins’ review of the movie, I’m fairly satisfied. The main point that I wanted to bring up was that the interviews in the movie were creatively edited to completely change the context of the answers, especially the last interview between Dawkins and Stein, in which half of Dawkins’ response (showing how panspermia-as-ID fails just as readily as god-as-ID does) is cut out to make it appear that Dawkins believes that panspermia is a perfectly suitable ID theory.
I asked Mathis about this specifically in the Q&A session, because it was so obvious that the Dawkins interview was cut short, nearly mid-sentence. Of course, he dismissed this by saying that “all documentaries edit interviews”. Like what I have said before, Mathis makes Michael Moore look like an honest, fact checking journalist. Anyone planning to see this movie expecting anything more than a pathetic attempt to pander to creationists and fundamentalists will be sorely disappointed.
If you haven’t read Dawkins’ review yet, you can find it here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
PC-Bash says,
–“First, isn’t it a little pretentious to call something that hasn’t gone through the scientific process a “fundamental theorem†instead of a conjecture or hypothesis? “–
It was just a joke. I called it a “theorem” because Darwinists charge that criticisms of Darwinism don’t appear to be scientific enough.
–“It is irreducible complexity, by any other name. Your example may be more elaborate and easier to refute, but it is IC all the same. You are just splitting this complexity between two species, and calling it “originalâ€.”–
“Splitting this complexity between two species” is one hell of a difference! Instead of a requirement of a single complex mutation in a single organism — which itself is a longshot — there might be a requirement for the occurrence of two complex mutations in two different organisms at the same place at the same time! (assuming that each of the mutations is fatal in the absence of the corresponding mutation in the other organism). Even where the mutations are not fatal in the absence of the corresponding mutation in the other organism, there is no advantage in natural selection when the corresponding mutation is absent. The problems of co-evolution actually compound the problems of irreducible complexity. And even when there is no irreducible complexity, the requirement of having corresponding co-dependent mutations in two different organisms occurring at the same time and place is a problem for co-evolution. Co-evolution is a problem even for “front-loaded” evolution (i.e., evolution is pre-programmed) because there would have to be some means of triggering the co-dependent mutations in both organisms at the same time and place.
It is apparent that you are opposed to original thinking.
–“Before this “Stand your ground†law, Florida already recognized that the castle doctrine extended to one’s car, in both case law, and in actual law. “–
I don’t know what the Florida law was before — all I know is that the “stand your ground” principle now includes public places, so it is not now part of the “castle doctrine.”
–“As for the support of the “academic freedom†law, I have seen two different polls on this with different results. In either case, dictating what should be taught in the science classroom isn’t really up to the public, it is up to the state board of education. “–
From what I have heard, the Florida state legislature has the power to overrule the state board of education. However, the “academic freedom” bill would not make any changes in the state education standards themselves. Also, some people were even arguing that the state board of education should have sent the standards back to the standards-writing committee rather than insert the words “scientific theory” in front of “evolution.” It is ridiculous to argue that the committee’s formal approval is needed for such a small change.
However, the “academic freedom†bill would not make any changes in the state education standards themselves.
No, it would just weaken the standards to the point of being laughable. What good are standards that cannot be enforced? Florida needs strong academic standards, as it stands now, Florida has one of the worst education systems in the US. The creationists apparently wish for this to remain so, by undermining the new state standards whenever they get a chance. If Florida becomes some sort of theistic “paradise” where creationism, or even false criticisms of evolution are allowed to be taught in the science classroom, then the state will be in a far worse economic crisis than it is now. When these indoctrinated students make it to college, they are going to have a difficult time, which in turn is going to lower the number of graduates with technical degrees. When Florida is unable to attract technology companies to its fledgling tech sector, due to its lackluster work force, its current budget crisis will look like a minor nuisance. After the economic shock waves have hit, Florida will be yet another Mississippi in terms of budget. Of course, creationists don’t care about the economic impact of their proselytizing, as long as they get to keep Jesus in the gaps that they are allowed to invoke when teaching science.
PC –
Thanks for that link. I enjoyed reading it. I have Dawkin’s site bookmarked, but haven’t been there recently. I am retired, and still I can’t keep pace with all this. I figured that they did a lot of cute editing to try to make themselves look smart (hah, good luck with that!), and make the scientific minded characters look dumb.
It appears that the movie is so ridiculous and poorly done, that maybe it’s too bad more of our legislators did not attend the viewing.
Do you follow strict syntax rules for XHTML 1.0 (on this site, anyway?)
I’m trying to learn this and it’s been blowing my mind.
My <p>text whatever</p> tags are being rudely ignored. Now, I think that I have figured out that all I need to use is a carriage return x2 to accomplish that.
Do you follow strict syntax rules for XHTML 1.0 (on this site, anyway?)
(assuming this question was directed at me)
I’m not affiliated with this site. I just leave a bunch of comments here.
I’m sure that paragraph tags and other heavy lifting formatting tags are filtered out by the blog software. It’s strange that the software does that, but doesn’t check parity problems with blockquotes, i, or b tags, which it does allow. The latter cause all sorts of interesting problems in both IE and Firefox.
PC-Bash sez,
–“If Florida becomes some sort of theistic “paradise†where creationism, or even false criticisms of evolution are allowed to be taught in the science classroom, then the state will be in a far worse economic crisis than it is now. “–
That is just “Chicken-Little-says-the-sky-is-falling” bullshit.
–“When Florida is unable to attract technology companies to its fledgling tech sector, due to its lackluster work force, its current budget crisis will look like a minor nuisance. “–
These technology companies don’t care whether Florida K-12 students study evolution or not.
I see that you have given up on trying to rebut my co-evolution arguments.
… and I see that you will never answer mt question.
Chicken.
Are you afraid to put the real answer down, Larry?
Can’t admit to yourself that you are a “wannabe”?
That you are blogging all over the place to give yourself some feeling of importance?
Or that you are really just trying to force YOUR opinion on innocent children?
You don’t realize that it’s a parents responsibility to teach religious values to their children – not yours?
Why are you trying to change MY (our) opinion about what you think is science?
If you know so much, then why don’t you do something PROACTIVE, and get involved doing some actual experimentation, research, and publishing?
THEN you might have a leg to stand on.
Why you are on the Florida Citizens for Science website, as a resident of CA., pretending to know so much about science, is a quite strange characteristic in a person.
Unless, of course, there is a good reason.
So, for the last time … What is your agenda?
So, for the last time … What is your agenda?
O mi gawd! That is so easy! If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit!
Seriously though. My opinion is… Larry is an ardent supporter of IDiots and YEC. His incessant carping on here is to try and gauge just how many people might be pro IDiot.
Plus, by posting on here on a regular basis, he can keep up with any “breaking news” that might be favorable to the IDiots and YEC groupies.
But thats just my opinion.
I see that you have given up on trying to rebut my co-evolution arguments.
To give up, I would have to care enough to want to refute them. I don’t lower myself to refuting drivel, Larry, especially something that could be answered if you’d bother to crack open an intro to biology book. Face it, you have just re-spun the old irreducible complexity argument, I called you on it, and now you’re trying to save face.
These technology companies don’t care whether Florida K-12 students study evolution or not.
When students learn that they have the “academic freedom” to answer “god dun’ it” to any question in science, they will become lousy students.
Larry:
These technology companies don’t care whether Florida K-12 students study evolution or not.
So, the technology companies need not rely on hiring their staff from within the state, but the point would be, that they do need intelligent employees. I don’t think these potential employees will want their children to be educated
in our schools.
This is a quote from Francis Crick who discovered the double helix formation of the DNA molecule. He is not a Christian and is a very notable scientist:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” (1981) Life Itself: Its origin and nature. New York, NT|Y: Simon & Shuster, p. 88.
Then in 1989 he said, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” (1998) Cited in William Dembski, Science and Design, First Things 86, October, 21-27.
So even though it looks like it’s designed, he blocks his mind from that option and tells biologists to constantly keep in mind that what they see is evolved!
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, why try so hard to pretend it’s not a duck????
I also want to address PC-Bash. My daughter was homeschooled in our Christian home until the 9th grade. She went to public school and immediately skipped a grade. She graduated with honors with a dual degree and was accepted to UF. She received her honors in History degree at age 19. Not too lousy of a student!!!!
Correction to next to last line: She received her Bachelor’s degree in History with hornors from UF.
PC–
I know that you are not affiliated with this site, but that you just live here. Right after your comment with the messed up italics tags, from about a week ago, magically got fixed, though, I seriously thought that either you were an alter ego of Brandon’s or you hacked his administrator password to get in and edit it
I asked because I know you are knowledgeable about this stuff. What I meant was do you follow the syntax rules when you compose comments? I guess my main confusion is knowing where you have to use good code when composing an HTML page vs what the software automatically performs when just doing comments on a blog site.
Your previous answer was helpful. No need to respond to this comment. Thanks.
Brandon, I think we’re ready for a fresh post. 😎
Marti –
So even though it looks like it’s designed, he blocks his mind from that option and tells biologists to constantly keep in mind that what they see is evolved!
That quote that you provided has been mined to death. The second a biologist marvels about the complexity and wonder of life, creationists must pounce on this as some sort of evidence for their god. Where, precisely, in your bible is there any mention of DNA, enzymatic reactions, or protein folding? For things so important, it’s odd that they got left out while a bunch of things that have been completely debunked by science were left in.
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, why try so hard to pretend it’s not a duck????
An omnipotent designer would not have also included the multitude of flaws that exist in life. Certainly, a half-witted engineer could have done better with the vestigial organs in humans, or the lower back problems that we have (our vertebrae have not fully evolved properly for standing upright — ask any chiropractor). If there is design (I am certainly not conceding that there is!), then the designer certainly wasn’t “intelligent”.
She received her honors in History degree at age 19.
Good for her… although to be fair that isn’t a technical degree. My point is that the rigor of science is extremely important in technical fields, especially the mathematical and engineering fields. Blindly claiming “my god dun’ it” while ignoring the facts presented in science is a gross injustice to any student being taught by one of the creationists who will hide behind the “academic freedom” bill, if it gets passed.
May I have a stab PC?
So even though it looks like it’s designed, he blocks his mind from that option and tells biologists to constantly keep in mind that what they see is evolved!
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, why try so hard to pretend it’s not a duck????
Marti,
Our DNA, double helix , genome etc etc is obviously not designed. The most glaring example of this, and in my opinion easeist to understand ( from this view point ), is our bodys inability to synthesize vitamin C. It would be hard to believe that we could have been intelligently designed with this glaring oversight. That and our anatomy resembles an amusement park next door to the sewer plant.
May I have a stab PC?
…but of course. 🙂
I thoroughly enjoyed these two articles, especially the second. Thanks.
…”aint kin to no monkey” – I love it…
Marti,
Keep in mind that science only deals with the natural world; beyond the natural world is the realm of philosophy and religion. If I, as a scientist, had to review a manuscript that claimed proof of God, I would reject it as surely as I would reject a paper that claimed to disprove God. By relying on supernatural, untestable explanations, the ID movement has disqualified itself from ever being science. The ID proponents have not even been able to produce an example of something in nature that requires non-natural laws to exist (see Prof. Ken Miller, who happens to be both a defender of evolution and a Roman Catholic, discuss the bacterial flagellum here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4 ).
Let me quote Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative Christian author, on ID:
ID advocates have sought to convince courts to require that their work be taught alongside Darwinian evolution, yet such efforts have been resoundingly defeated. Why has the ID legal strategy proven to be such a failure, even at the hands of conservative judges? Imagine that a group of advocates challenged Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity. Let’s say that this group, made up of a law professor, a couple of physicists, several journalists, as well as some divinity school graduates, flatly denies Einstein’s proposition that e=mc^2. How would a judge, who is not a physicist, resolve the group’s demand for inclusion in the physics classroom? He would summon a wide cross-section of leading physicists. They would inform him that despite unresolved debates about relativity–for example, its unexplained relationship to quantum theory–Einstein’s theories are supported by a wide body of data. They enjoy near-unanimous support in the physics community worldwide. There is no alternative scientific theory that comes close to explaining the facts at hand. In such a situation any judge would promptly show the dissenters the door and deny their demand for equal time in the classroom. This is precisely the predicament of the ID movement.
I hope that you consider this when you think about the very real issue of pro-science vs. anti-science, which is very different from science vs. religion. We don’t need every new student to go into science, but we do need an American public that appreciates what science is, and what it can and can’t do, more than ever.
In closing, warmest congratulations to you and your daughter for her academic success! 🙂