51. Comment #130066 by Geoff on February 20, 2008 at 2:50 am

I picked this up from the comments on pharyngula:

Actually, the standards also do a pretty good job of explaining what a "scientific theory" is:

Starting in grade 3, students are supposed to be instructed as to:

BIG IDEA 3: The Role of Theories, Laws, Hypotheses, and Models The terms that describe examples of scientific knowledge, for example; "theory," "law," "hypothesis" and "model" have very specific meanings and functions within science.

By 6th grade:

SC.6.N.3.1 Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.

SC.6.N.3.In.a
Identify that a scientific theory is an explanation of nature supported by evidence.

And, in 9th through 12th grades:

SC.912.N.3.1 Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.

SC.912.N.3.In.a
Recognize that a scientific theory is developed by repeated investigations of many scientists and agreement on the likely explanation.

Between that and labeling plate tectonics, gravity, electromagnetism, etc. as "scientific theories," what are the kids going to think when their parents and preachers try to tell them evolution is "only" a theory? This could turn out worse for the creationists than if the original proposal had been adopted.

Not to mention that this heads off the state legislature that was making noises of adding "theory" to "evolution," where they would, doubtless, have singled evolution out.

Posted by: John Pieret

Other Comments by Geoff

52. Comment #130076 by Tyler Durden on February 20, 2008 at 3:23 am

He said the teaching of evolution in Florida's schools should include scientific criticisms of the controversial theory.

Controversial? Huh? It's only "controversial" in backwater-hicksville-redneck-dumbass-ignorant-cleutus-from-the-simpsons type areas of the world USA!!

Meanwhile, back in the real world... kids are being educated properly.

/rant over/

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

53. Comment #130080 by Imperion on February 20, 2008 at 3:33 am

Tyler Durden:

Controversial? Huh? It's only "controversial" in backwater-hicksville-redneck-dumbass-ignorant-cleutus-from-the-simpsons type areas of the world USA!!

You know... I was furious when I read your post, because I am also being grouped with your stereotype that you've made of Florida. But then I thought about it. You are absolutely right. Your words describe us perfectly. I would rather have people constantly point out and ridicule my state's general incompetence whenever and wherever it shows up. It will only embarrass those who deserve it and make them think twice when the rest of the country laughs at us. Keep up the good work.

Other Comments by Imperion

54. Comment #130081 by irate_atheist on February 20, 2008 at 3:34 am

In other news:

Texas housewife concedes 'world might not be flat, after all'.

CofE Bishop admits 'recent flooding probably due to rain, not gays'.

and finally

Vatican spokesman confesses 'yes, it was all an elaborate joke from the start'.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

55. Comment #130083 by Imperion on February 20, 2008 at 3:35 am

Fenriswolf:

In a way this is a good thing I suppose, but it is a shame that the theory should still be regarded as "controversial". It's also slightly worrying that the vote was so close. What the fuck is going on over there?

The revised standards are not written controversially. It is "the scientific theory of evolution...the concept underlying all of biology...supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." In addition, there is a preface that accurately defines what a scientific theory is (see Geoff's post above). The 4-3 vote is deceptive. Two of the members who voted against were so distraught at the creationists' attacks that they pledged to vote no if any of the words were changed from the original. This is because they did not want to give the Creationists any opportunity, whatsoever, to know that the school board could be successfully influenced by their tactics. So, in reality, only one person was against the addition of biological evolution to the curriculum. That person is our local fool, Donna Callaway. She's led the charge against the science standards the entire way.

Adam Morrison:

How about somebody comes up with some logical criticisms and not stupid poofist nonsense? Any takers? No? Between this and the 'oranges argument' Florida is really shining this week

People from all over the country came to stand up for us. Multiple members of the science standards writing committee came in person to defend them. Every single one of them sent letters. The NAS showed their support. The NCSE showed their support (Eugenie Scott came here personally). Florida citizens for science showed their support. Multiple college and high school science teachers came from all over the state. Our fantastic FSU professors went out of their way to speak to the public. Last but not least, many average citizens were standing up to be heard in favor of the standards. Don't be sad or sarcastic for Florida. Be happy for us. We have won (for now).

annabanana:

Why, in the name of the FSM, would we want to placate any of these morons? This is super annoying since it is re-affirming the misrepresentation of the meaning of the word "theory".

Since you asked, I will tell you. In Florida, the religious have the power that matters. Maybe, further North, there is a difference between Republican/conservative and Christian... but not here. They own the legislature and the majority leader, if I'm not mistaken, is about as Young Earth Creationist as it gets. A significant portion of our counties (even my county, unfortunately) demanded a compromise to the "dogmatic wording of the standards". Multiple people with friends in our legislature constantly threaten to have the state school board overridden if the word "theory" was not inserted. The words "scientific theory of" were added before the word evolution. You may think this is a compromise, but it is an enormous win for science here in our state. Before this, we didn't teach it at all! Yes, it is a slight misrepresentation of the fact of biological evolution and its parent theories, but trust me on this -- we'll take it.

One small step for Florida, one giant leap for mankind.

Btw. This isn't over. The DI isn't quite as stupid as the average Florida creationist. You can see here that they are not fooled by the supposed compromise of adding the 'scientific theory' wording (it takes a special kind of ignorance to think that actually reduces its standing). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/florida_state_board_of_educati_1.html
DI is heavily encouraging the critics to get this issue swamped into our legislative session (which is just starting...). There are many people who have vowed to do this anyway. So, keep an eye on us.

Other Comments by Imperion

56. Comment #130102 by Jaffas85 on February 20, 2008 at 4:58 am

Am I the only one who thinks it is actually a good thing that the are calling evolution a "scientific theory" because that way students will actually be able to learn about what a scientific theory actually is:

A "fact" being like the "brick" and the "theory" being like the "building".

Also, I find it remarkable that a Baptist feels he has the authority to tell a science board what should and should not be deemed science and what is backed by scientific evidence.

And also, why are these science standards open for public opinion and intervention? Certainly isn't like that here in Australia. Here they just create the standards as they should be and thats that. Seems ridiculous that science standards should be up for public debate when most of the public know little to nothing about science.

Other Comments by Jaffas85

57. Comment #130116 by phasmagigas on February 20, 2008 at 5:40 am

quote from the DI website:

'Despite the fact that the meaningless words "scientific theory" were inserted into the standards'

funny how previously a creationists favourite jello weapons was the word (scientific)'theory' now its apparently meaningless!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

58. Comment #130147 by Wendy M on February 20, 2008 at 6:26 am

Perhaps we should pass a law requiring Christians to "include scientific criticisms of the controversial theory" of God when they talk to kids about their beliefs.

Other Comments by Wendy M

59. Comment #130156 by Fedler on February 20, 2008 at 6:34 am

Very good point Wendy.

Other Comments by Fedler

60. Comment #130304 by arogop on February 20, 2008 at 8:48 am

20. Comment #129670 by liberalartist

Wisconsin has some pretty irrational parts as well. I grew up in rural Wisconsin and was kicked out of my PUBLIC high school for being "amoral and unchristian".

From Madison,

Andrew

Other Comments by arogop

61. Comment #130316 by DamnDirtyApe on February 20, 2008 at 9:37 am

This sounds like a win to me.

Adding the word 'Science' on the front sounds like idiot proofing. :)

No joe bloggs is stupid enough to argue against the 'Scientific theory of gravity'. Maybe they'll figure it out...

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

62. Comment #130344 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 20, 2008 at 11:19 am

Annabanana: Why, in the name of the FSM, would we want to placate any of these morons?

Because they have a vote. No one wants to do the right thing even if it means losing one's position...cowards.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

63. Comment #130366 by epeeist on February 20, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I liked this article in the Miami Herald - http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/carl_hiaasen/story/421075.html

Other Comments by epeeist

64. Comment #130436 by MuNky82 on February 20, 2008 at 2:11 pm

I am reposting a comment I left on "http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/19/tallahassee-debates-evolution/#comments" :

What pees me off is that YEC was unheard of in my culture. But they slowly invaded the churches of my childhood. Now we have former rational Christians (oxymoron I know, but I digress...) who accepted evolution since it was science, now denouncing it because ignorrant hicks managed the skill of video production and website design. School chums, who would have laughed if you told them the earth is 6000 years old, since science says "no", now affirming it since their Sundays was flooded with misinformation. Christianity is a mind virus, but creationism f*cked it up royally.

And it is true. I have a former friend who was an excellent science student in school. He got involved more and more with his church, which was alright with me then, since I knew his morality was enforced by the panopticon delusion. But when I ran into him now years later on Facebook, he totally changed. He was spewing YEC lunacy. He is now a former friend since our debates reached stalemate. I still have him in my friends list but I will not meet up with him when he is in town. And this case is not the only one. My former church, which I have to admit was the most liberal and forward thinking denomination in my culture, is now laden with this filth. I met a YEC returning from a sermon the other night. He is involved with a congregation of mostly students located off a univerity campus (!) and he spewed Hovind theories. I punched holes in them quickly but was shocked when I realised this shit has been growing there in the last 7 years...

OFF TOPIC - Imperion, cool avatar, where is it from?

Other Comments by MuNky82

65. Comment #130465 by MelM on February 20, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Comment #130366 by epeeist,
Funny story.

Comment #130083 by Imperion,
First off, congratulations. I think this is a big win for Florida and for science in the U.S.

Thanks for the clarification of the 4-3 vote; I was surprised by it and I'm very glad to see that only Donna Callaway was really against the new standards.

I looked at the new standards yesterday. With the material about science and "theory", it looks like a Florida science teacher can do his/her job. The nutters have gotten some propaganda handles into the document ("theory") and I'm sure they will use them; however, the document itself contains a counter by way of the explanations of "theory" (Comment #130066 by Geoff). People writing rebuttals to creationist misuse of "theory" can quote the standard. So, in a way, the standard contains it's own protection.

I posted a comment yesterday by Stacy S. from the "Panda's Thumb" blog. It concerns an attempt to get the Florida legislature to demand "academic freedom".
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/florida-the-sta.html#comment-143557

Do you think this Kendall person and her coalition have any chance of getting "...and teachers should be permitted to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence." added to the standards by the legislature?

Other Comments by MelM

66. Comment #130501 by Imperion on February 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Comment #130436 by MuNky82:

OFF TOPIC - Imperion, cool avatar, where is it from?

Thanks. It is from a late edition cover to "Masks of Nyarlathotep." The image is in reverence to my favorite writer, H.P. Lovecraft. In a final 1937 letter to a friend, Nils H. Frome, Lovecraft strived to 'disabuse' his young correspondent of spurious supernatural and occult delusions. The most remarkable part about this is that Lovecraft already knew he was about to die. Even at Death's door, he remained confident of his scientific beliefs.

Comment #130465 by MelM

Do you think this Kendall person and her coalition have any chance of getting "...and teachers should be permitted to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence." added to the standards by the legislature?

Thank you for the congratulations. Yes, they have a good chance of watering down the standards even more. They won't stop until someone important stops them. You may have seen the national polls regarding this issue (such as the ABCnews one) where the majority of responses were for the teaching of evolution in our state schools. In Florida, this is not the case. We are vastly outnumbered by not just Christian Creationists, but those of the Young Earth variety. For every person who spoke in favor of science at the DoE meetings, there were 3 more who embarrassed themselves to the world by speaking against the standards. They are loud and they are organized. In reality, they want nothing short of overturning the 1948 Mccollum case that took religion out of public school. They believe "the Separation of Church and State" is a myth (I'm serious). Lastly, to provide you with evidence as to just how powerful they are here, we Floridians have a portion of our taxes that funds faith-based private schools via loophole. Before you scream about how unconstitutional that is, save it. We already know. Secular organizations try to get it reversed all the time, but they fail over and over (at least 3 times now).

Now that the Republicans have control, it is like Florida thinks it can do what it wants (apparently, this is so). I'm not sure what to tell you other than hang in there and see what happens. On the bright side, the many Representatives that threatened to have the school board's decision crushed were only doing so if the word "theory" wasn't inserted into the standards. They got what they wanted, so I don't have any idea how the enemy has grounds to stand on. Still, that may just be wishful thinking. The Christian groups here will take as much as they are given and they are never satisfied. They will scream and scream and scream until the entire science standards revision is thrown out if they can get it. That is certainly possible.

If you want to follow our drama, the Florida Citizens for Science blog is useful. http://www.flascience.org/wp/

Other Comments by Imperion

67. Comment #130511 by MelM on February 20, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Comment #130501 by Imperion,

Thanks for your answer.

Oh yes, I'm aware that the wall-of-separation is a key problem for the evangelicals. The wall is mostly intact but it has certainly been breached although I wasn't aware of Florida taxes going to faith-based private schools.

I was hoping for better news than "hang in there" but facts are facts so I'll put the Florida Citizens for Science blog in my bookmarks and follow the developments; what happens in Florida is, in my view, very important.

Other Comments by MelM

68. Comment #130564 by Imperion on February 20, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Here we go. What I was referring to was a voucher proposed by Jeb Bush. We were providing funding through loopholes in our state constitution (for 8 years I think?), but when it was made more public, official proposals had to be made to try and give the appearance of it being constitutional. It was rejected in 2005, but not only have they never stopped trying to get it passed (they are on their 4th attempt now), but the hijinks persist.

Here is what is going on lately:
http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9667

Apparently, I spoke a bit too fast about us still funding religious schools. I was in error. Still, you can see how they never stop fighting. It is almost as if nobody cares about or knows about how all state legislature is still bound by the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment. It's like some kinda game.

Other Comments by Imperion

69. Comment #131058 by tyler gislason on February 21, 2008 at 8:35 pm

'He said the teaching of evolution in Florida's schools should include scientific criticisms of the controversial theory'

As long as they aren't allowed to teach creationism as science, this is fine with me. If they attempt to present creationism as a conflicting theory in some textbook, it's not fine... unless it's an abnormal psychology textbook.

Other Comments by tyler gislason

70. Comment #138554 by epeeist on March 4, 2008 at 2:04 pm

It might be dead, but it certainly doesn't want to lie down - http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2008/03/will-we-be-hear.html

Other Comments by epeeist