| Fla. educators to teach evolution as theory, not settled fact – On Deadline – USATODAY.com — Here we go again. From here it will trend towards alternative theories, then creation science, then the Bible as sole arbiter. |
Students in Florida must be taught that evolution is a theory and not a settled fact, according to standards that the State Board of Education just approved in Tallahasee.
“A panel of 68 experts, heavy with science teachers and scientists, drew up detailed, age-specific standards that described evolution as the basic ‘concept underlying all of biology.’ The standards said evolution was supported by ‘multiple forms of scientific evidence,'” The News-Press, a fellow Gannett paper, says. “In a series of public hearings, several conservative religious leaders and parents objected to evolution being ‘the’ accepted standard. The compromise language approved today cites ‘the scientific theory of evolution,’ making it officially a theory rather than a settled fact.”
So I take it Florida now also teaches the Theory of God?
# 70 OhForTheLoveOf “#57 – “If we evolved from monkeys, there would be no monkeys left alive.””
That was funny, in a sad sort of way, wasn’t it?
# 90 bobbo “Global Warming is a FACT. It is observable and measurable.”
Owww. You’re undoing a lot of good work above. Just don’t tell me now you believe in cyclical weather patterns to explain nearly unprecedented snows and cold weather in China, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia & Israel; even in Vancouver which used to only see maybe 1 day of snow.
RBG
“It is a theory, ONLY BY STRICT TECHNICAL DEFINITION. Joe Sixpack does not grasp the fine distinction between something that is the absolute, unshakable foundation of ALL LIFE SCIENCE”
Too funny! It’s as unshakable as jello. Sounds like it was written by a priest.
#93–RGB==because Global Warming remains an average from around the world. What do you want as “proof.” Warmner in every spot in the world before you admit it? Sounds like you do your thinking with your head in the freezer: “Nope, no global warming here!”
#94–patrick==so, go ahead and shake it. What have you got?
Gee, 2 really stupid posts in a row. Unknow guys==even as you come here with your prejudices and ignorance, even just reading this thread much less any follow up with cited material, could give you an education not only in how science and the world works, but also in actually how to “think” for yourself?
Wasted opportunity.
The postings here show you how diverse an education you can get in America. I graduated from a fine public school to. Let no one be left behind. Creation and evolution prove there is a God. Scientist still can’t explain a great deal about how the human body works, though they have been blessed with a God given ability to evolve in their knowledge about it. We are truly amazing creatures.
> Creation and evolution prove there is a God.
> Scientist still can’t explain a great
> deal about how the human body works,
> though they have been
> blessed with a God given ability to
> evolve in
> their knowledge about it.
Science and specifically evolution, does nothing of the sort. There is no falsifiable hypothesis with respect to a deity that science can test with respect to a deity. In addition, there are alternate explanations for the source of people’s ability besides divine intervention.
Regardless, the core issue is not whether creationism should be taught. The core issue is whether it should be taught as science. Just as we do not teach astrology as astronomy, neither should we teach creationism as science.
#98
> You have to believe God exists.
This is an entirely different and frankly, irrelevant discussion. Personally, I have no compunction to accept such a claim since it has no evidence to substantiate it. However, whether you accept the existence of a deity or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion about whether teaching belief in a science class is appropriate.
As I mentioned before, should we teach mathematics in an English class? Should we teach Swahili in a French class? Should we teach history in a biology class? Most rational people would assume that the answer to all of these questions is no.
Does belief, unsubstantiated by scientific evidence, belong in a class about science? The rational answer is no. That does not mean there is no place whatsoever for such a topic. Clearly classes on religion or philosophy are entirely appropriate for a discussion about belief. However, in a class about science, a discussion about scientifically unsubstantiated belief has no place.
#99 Thomas – Science is a much broader subject than is a language class. In fact, some science is unproven and learning about relationships among variables used to try and build a theory and possible substance to explain how or why something reacts as it does.
“Does belief, unsubstantiated by scientific evidence, belong in a class about science?”
A theory that God did create is valid in some science class. It can provide the understanding of relational variables. And what do you deem scientific evidence? Hopefully, it’s not something you have to see to believe.
However, you point of veering from the subject is taken. Evolution, as they are addressing it at the top of this post, is theory and should not be used as a “Standard” of fact.
I fondly recall the first day in my college biology class. The prof said: “If you are looking forward to any discussion of the role god may play in what we are going to spend this semester studying, you are in the wrong class.”
Hillary–the error in your “thinking” might even become clear to you if you substitute the word god with “any other diety you have rejected” and see how it fits.
#100
> Science is a much broader subject
> than is a language class.
Actually, at grades of HS or lower, it is not particularly broad. Primarily, it is concerned with fundamental scientific knowledge (atoms, cells, Newtonian physics etc.) and the scientific method.
> In fact, some science
> is unproven
> and learning about relationships
> among variables used to try and build a theory
> and possible substance to explain how or why
> something reacts as it does.
Taken to its literal meaning, your statement is a non-sequitur. It is like saying a mathematical proof is not proven. Real science is backed by experimentation and substantial unbiased verification. That is most definitely true of the material taught at the HS grade level or lower. There is plenty of scientific sounding material which sounds plausible but is as yet unproven and none of that is relevant material for the grade levels were are discussing.
>> “Does belief, unsubstantiated by scientific
>> evidence, belong in a class about science?”
>
> A theory that God did create is valid in some
> science class.
That is a statement of ignorance. You are using the word “theory” in the vernacular and not as a scientist. To a scientist, the word “theory” means that there is a falsifiable premise which has been established through experimentation to be sufficiently accurate. In every case, a scientific theory can be proven through experimentation. Therefore, to a scientist, the statement “the theory that ‘God’ created…” is entirely invalid if you cannot formalize the meaning of the word “God” and further establish its existence and relevance to the experiment. In other words, belief based statements are entirely irrelevant to the subject of science as they are to the subject of mathematics.
> However, you point of veering from the
> subject is
> taken. Evolution, as they are addressing it at
> the top of this post, is theory and should
> not be
> used as a “Standard” of fact.
On the contrary, the very core of the issue is that people want non-science to be taught as science. “Evolution” is most definitely science and therefore qualifies to be taught as science. Faith is most definitely not science and therefore should not be taught as such.
One of the common problems here is that the word “evolution” is being used in two very different contexts:
1. The observable fact that species change over time.
2. The scientific theory that predicts how that change occurs over time.
That species evolve is an observable fact just like the fact that objects fall to the Earth when dropped. The scientific theory(-ies) of evolution that explains how species evolve has been rigorously tested across numerous scientific disciplines for over many years. Clearly, the scientific theory(-ies) of evolution qualifies to be taught as science. Contrast that with creationist theories or belief-based hypotheses which have no basis in science just as they have no relevance to tiddlywinks.
Would you be aghast if I suggested teaching sex education, cultural anthropology or mathematics in a class about the Christian religion? So too should you be mortified that people want to teach non-science in a science class.