Columnist in the Sun-Sentinel:
Scientists need to keep an open mind, for there’s no telling what the future will bring in the way of knowledge. As Florida moves into that future, however, its public schools need to deal with real science, and not pseudo-science based on the begats or equally questionable foundations.
Republicans in government should remember Terri Schiavo. They pandered to the religious right by trying to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube, but their actions appalled millions of other Floridians, and they felt the backlash.
The same could hold true for evolution. Legislators may win some votes through an egalitarian approach toward biological science, but they risk alienating plenty of other Floridians who want to live in the 21st century rather than the 17th.
Column in the Independent Florida Alligator:
Despite voluminous legal precedents condemning the teaching in public schools of creationism or intelligent design — whichever term you prefer; they are one in the same — as an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion, and despite the overwhelming backing that the theory of evolution enjoys from the scientific community, the religious right just won’t quit.
Last week, the Republican-controlled Florida legislature — which now boasts a prodigious 32 percent approval rating, the lowest ever — moved one step closer to pushing through an incredibly ignorant and shamelessly duplicitous piece of legislation that aims to inject religion into the Sunshine State’s public schools. The deceptively named “Academic Freedom Act†is now one House council’s approval away from a floor vote. The Senate is already set to vote on the measure.
It’s official. The Florida state legislature is the Leeroy Jenkins of state politics.
NSFW notice: some cussin’ in the link
pseudo-science based on the begats
Maybe this phrase has been around awhile and I just never read it, but that one is a keeper!
I know that you guys are doing great work, because we keep blogging about the same stuff. Here’s my little bit on this:
Remember Terri Schiavo!
In case that coding doesn’t work, it’s here: http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/
Spirula –
Yes. That phrase is full of win.
Oh, but Larry Farfaman says there are 🙄
Yes… and now he is claiming that his alternate “theory” is being censored because it is so persuasive. For such a persuasive argument, he has yet to win a single argument here. He can’t even provide evidence. 🙄
He has certainly lived up to his reputation as a crank.
Science should be taught in school with a disclaimer read to each student who is exposed to the evolutionary theory. “The following theory of evolution that you will be exposed to are the views of those who promote such views. These views may be in contradiction to other fields of learning that use the total observational process.”
If your honest you would accept this.
Wowzers Tom, just what the hell does this mean These views may be in contradiction to other fields of learning that use the total observational process.�
Why surely, you are not suggesting that YEC/ID can be observed are you?
Sorry let me clarify what I said. This would let the children know that the matter of a limited system of observation used in the theory of evolution may not take into account other human faculties used in every day life for the decision making process.
Tom –
You mean, as opposed to using faith, to believe in things that don’t exist?
PC
Do you have anything not completely inane to say?
Actually Tom, I think PC is spot on. Your very statement This would let the children know that the matter of a limited system of observation used in the theory of evolution may not take into account other human faculties used in every day life for the decision making process.
Lends itself to supporting YEC/ID. You are saying that since we didn’t get a chance to see tiktaalic morph, then the idea that there was evolution on a macro scale is wrong because…we didn’t see it. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary. That being said, there is no scientific alternate to evolution. Only the carping by religious fundies that Gawddidit!
It’s interesting. Can you explain love with your scientific method ?
So love would be a result of chemical processes ?
Or maybe you believe that there is no such thing as love, because you can’t see it in a lab.
Tom,
How does the “limited system of observation” apply just to evolution, rather to all science?
And yes, science deals with what we can observe and measure in the natural world, it does not deal with philosophical issues. Again, that’s not evolution-specific.
A couple of hundred years ago Doctors believed that blood letting was good. This was to let the bad blood out. You will find out that the theory that man evolved from an amoeba will be just as phony.(along with man made global waming)
Tom Says: It’s interesting. Can you explain love with your scientific method ?
Yes
IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn’t man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought–There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions–just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn’t mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?
Look at the ignorance of doctors over the past few centuries. Sanitary practices, such as washing hands, were laughed at by doctors, while thousands of patients continued to die. It was unimaginable to doctors back then, that washing one’s hands somehow was related to a patient’s health in the operating room. Can you believe that? Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God’s Word, and of common sense itself. It’s hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago. If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons. And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years. You’ve got to be kidding me! Don’t tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease! The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn wash his hands. This is just another undeniable PROOF that evolution is a lie. If mankind had evolved over millions of years, then men would have discovered these inventions a very long time ago.
Oh Artie, I would absolutely love it if you went to speak in Tallahassee tomorrow! You are absolutely the smartest person that I have had the privelage of reading! Wow! Just Wow!!!
You and orange guy need to get together! 🙂
Oops – I mean “privilege”
Tom – I will trade you – I will admit that science has its limits – it is limited to evidence based theories about the natural world; In return I want you Fundies need to include sex education under the academic freedom bill so we science teachers can teach children how to protect themselves from disease when the creationist “abstinence only” teachers funded by the feds leave my classroom after telling them to “just say no”.
Mary,
You reveal your true moral character by your answer. You want kids to have free irresponsible sex and then try and to protect them from the physical maladies which may follow. However the pyschological damage, which carries on for years afterwords, you will have no answer in accordance with your “scientific methods”.
Actually man was formed from the dust. Creationists believe it happenned instantly and evolutionists say it took millions of years. The only basic difference is the amount of time it took. Both believe that those things which aren’t seen made it happen. Creationists believe the “unseen” God did it – evolutionists believed in an “unseen” principle of self effort did it.
Creationists believe the “unseen†God did it – evolutionists believed in an “unseen†principle of self effort did it.
The problem with this statement is that evolutionists have evidence to support their claims, whereas creationists have absolutely none other than faith.
It’s interesting. Can you explain love with your scientific method ?
To paraphrase Dawkins. This question is too easy, a dwaddle to answer. Yes Tom we can. There are verifiable changes in hormone level, chemical interactions in the brain etc.
Oh, and lotsa porn!