TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Her 'Academic Freedom'? Not Free, Just Dumb
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: April 3, 2008
With a straight face, state Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Tammy Faye Bakker Only Without The Sense Of Whimsy, has insisted her dubiously titled "Academic Freedom Act," which is really the nose of the "Intelligent Design" camel poking under the tent, has nothing to do with eventually introducing into public school classrooms the wizard in the sky mumbo jumbo argument for creationism.
The reason Storms turned into a repeating sound loop of denials that made Baghdad Bob look like Winston Churchill is that even the state senator knows that if she publicly admitted she was trying to turn Florida's public schools into fundamentalist Christian madrassas, her silly "Academic Freedom Act" fiddle-faddle would get the bum's rush from every court in the land - including the "American Idol" judges.
Indeed, the obvious anti-Darwin's Theory of Evolution effort by Storms, R-The Madame Defarge of Genesis, has nothing to do with "Academic Freedom." This is the senator's "Academic Fiefdom Act."
Hocus-Pocus
Under the hypocritically disingenuous guise of simply allowing the state's science teachers who don't agree with ... well, the science of biology, to introduce their own version of pseudo-hocus-pocus science to their students.
Storms got her sackcloth and ashes in a wad when the Florida Board of Education, after consulting with actual scientists and science teachers, otherwise known as "adults," determined here, in the 2008th year of our Lord, it might be a really crackerjack idea to teach Florida public school students that Darwin's theory of evolution is indeed the settled science upon which the study of biology is scientifically objectively based.
There was a brief meaningless flap over including the use of the word "theory" in connection with evolution.
Of course, evolution is a theory, just as Newton's theory of gravity or relativity and various physics standards are all settled science, too.
Had the evolution opponents been more linguistically astute, they would have insisted evolution be regarded as a "hypothesis," which more accurately defines an unproven supposition, or proposition requiring further study.
Round? It's Flat, Isn't It?
It's hardly a huge surprise that Storms' effort to turn Florida public schools' science standards into a Biblical buffet line was successfully passed out of the Senate "education!!!!!!!" committee. Stay tuned for "The Earth is round? What's up with that?"
After all, what gutless pol wants to be accused by the religious right moneybags types of being anti-God, even if they privately believe it might be a fine idea to teach science in science classrooms?
Of course, if you start permitting crazy teachers to teach their own parallel universe reality, where does it end?
By the twisted logic of Storms' "Academic Freedom Act," what is to prevent teachers from telling students - because they feel like it - the Holocaust never happened, or that the 1969 moon landing was nothing more than a Hollywood sound stage hoax, or that Barack Obama is a Muslim?
That's not "Academic Freedom." It's sanctioning intellectually dishonest scholastic anarchy.
Keyword: Book of Ruth, to read and comment on Daniel Ruth's blog.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
Reader Comments
Posted by ( pacfandave ) on April 3, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The difference between Madame Defarge and Ronda Storms is that Ronda has a sense of humor. Or, rather, Ronda's humor is senseless. She is oblivious of it and conveys it unintentionally. But that doesn't make her any less humorous...does it?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BUSHSUX ) on April 3, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rhonda Storms is a pathetic hairbag of a state senator, and everyone of the folks who voted her into office should feel like the MORONS they are.Storms is making her constituants look like a bunch of toothless backwoods bozos,every time she opens her big mouth.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( island ) on April 3, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The author's own non-factual spin on this article proves that politics and the culture war are what the debate is really about for liars for Jesus, vs, liars for neodarwinism.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( soldier62 ) on April 3, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
As one of the "MORONS" who keeps voting for her, I suppose all I have to say is that we like her ideas. There must be more of us than there are of her critics, as she keeps winning, doesn't she? It's called "Democracy".
Guileless comments I have just read are representative of the "political correctness" which is infecting our society.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hiskeys ) on April 3, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Wow. Wish I had time to refute almost every sentence.
Suffice to say that biological origins are unlike gravity or laws of physics, in that the activity which took place in the past cannot be observed. ALL origin science (evolution, intelligent design, and biblical creation) involve observation of certain facts and extrapolation into the past based on those facts. We need to tread lightly and and not throw around phrases like "settled science" when there are still major unresolved issues.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( pacfandave ) on April 3, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Intelligent design? What is intelligent about the design of an ecosystem wherein the survival of any given species is dependent upon the killing and consumption of another? What is intelligent about the design of fauna that includes mosquitos, leeches and, well, liberals?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Paul37 ) on April 4, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I don't read this column regularly, but I'd like to hope Daniel Ruth is somewhat intelligent. In this piece, however, he sounds like someone desperately trying to defend his beliefs by attacking the other side with ridicule. By the way, that's a fallacy according to informal logic.
I don't even know what Ronda Storms & Co. are trying to legislate. I'm not sure I care.
Politics aside, I know this: that Daniel Ruth has presented himself as a desperate scoffer in this article--one who dismisses free thinking in the scientific community and fails to factor in modern history and the beliefs held by the fathers of modern science.
Based on your method of arguing, Mr. Ruth, this column is clearly wrong because you're fat and stupid. And you wear glasses, so you must be a sissy.
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 4, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
hiskeys writes: "We need to tread lightly and and not throw around phrases like 'settled science' when there are still major unresolved issues."
And these "major unresolved issues" are what, exactly?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 4, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
hiskeys wrote: "Suffice to say that biological origins are unlike gravity or laws of physics, in that the activity which took place in the past cannot be observed."
*All* observations are of the results of events that took place in the past. For instance, when one uses a telescope to look at a star, one is looking at the results of an event that took place hundreds, thousands, or millions of years in the past. When we look today at fossils or DNA, we are observing the results of events that took place in the past.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( island ) on April 4, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
drewsmith:
"*All* observations are of the results of events that took place in the past. For instance, when one uses a telescope to look at a star, one is looking at the results of an event that took place hundreds, thousands, or millions of years in the past. When we look today at fossils or DNA, we are observing the results of events that took place in the past."
Yes, and the fact is that we know that the light has been distorted along the way, no matter how short the duration, so the question is... how much distortion does our observation include, and why don't you quit ducking the point and admit that we can never know for sure, drew? That's why we do other tests, and more accurate tests, since this helps but cannot eliminate all doubt.
The theory of relativity is constantly tested for weaknesses to degrees of accuracy that would make your freaking head spin, and this only makes it the greatest theory to hit science since Newton’s theory failed to account for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.
This is also what the bill that Storms is trying to get passed would guarantee happens, ***without allowing for creationism, (per the wording of the law)***, so I have to wonder if this isn't yet another case where the neodarwinians are cutting off their noses to spite their own antifanatical faces, just like they did when the creationists made evolutionary theory stronger in the science standard by tagging it with the term "scientific theory".
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( barnetto ) on April 4, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
In reply to paul37,
Way to spot the appeal to ridicule! But has an actual fallacy been committed here? Only if creationism as a scientific theory were not absurd.
As long as we're play Spot the Logical Fallcy, I see an Ad hominem: that the author of the article is an ignorant "desperate scoffer".
You then attempted to use the same argument you accuse the author of making to demonstrate the absurdity of the author's reasoning, but failed in your attempt because you once again employ ad hominem, rather than your intended weapon of appeal to ridicule.
If you had better reasoning, logic skills, and a better science education you might discover that the rejection of Creationism (and Expelled the Movie) is not the rejection of "free thinking in the scientific community", but a rejection of ideas that are supernatural rather than natural and therefore *not* a part of science and should not be a part of Florida's science curriculum.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( K9POV ) on April 4, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Intelligent design should be taught as part of a philosophy class. Call it the beautiful watch theory and present it as a secular idea.
Discussions about I.D. do not not belong in the science classroom.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( timk ) on April 4, 2008 at 11:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Why is it that people who have no idea what evolution is, or what science is, should have any say in what should be taught in science classes? Everybody second-guesses everything, without benefit of even understanding the subject. The average American has no idea when to keep his big mouth shut and defer to subject matter experts.
It is an absolute indictment of the critical thinking skills of that electorate that a moron like Storms gets elected in the first place. It is an absolute indictment of our education system that anyone calls any form of creationism “science.” And it’s a sad state of affairs when the pious think they know more about biology than the National Academy of Sciences.
I’m an ecologist – I only had two 6000-level courses in evolution in grad school. But I guarantee that in a heartbeat I can take the subject a mile over either idiot’s (Storms or Stein) head. And in an equally short period of time an evolutionary biologist can take the subject that far over my head. It is a highly technical subject, and the mouth breathers who claim to know it’s all wrong can’t even comprehend what it is that they are denying.
God save me from the believers.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 5, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I wrote: *All* observations are of the results of events that took place in the past. For instance, when one uses a telescope to look at a star, one is looking at the results of an event that took place hundreds, thousands, or millions of years in the past. When we look today at fossils or DNA, we are observing the results of events that took place in the past.
Island responded: "Yes, and the fact is that we know that the light has been distorted along the way, no matter how short the duration, so the question is... how much distortion does our observation include, and why don't you quit ducking the point"
Since I don't see where you've ever brought this point up to me before, how can I have been "ducking" it? Also, exactly what is the *relevance* of the point? My point didn't have anything to do with "distortion". It had to do with the idea that *all* observation is necessarily of *past* events.
***
Island responded: "...and admit that we can never know for sure..."
Since I have never claimed that science claims 100% certainty about anything (science doesn't...that's at least one significant way in which it differs from religion, which claims "the truth"), what is there for me to "admit" to?
***
Island wrote: "This is also what the bill that Storms is trying to get passed would guarantee happens"
The bill that Storms is trying to get passed isn't needed, since there has yet been no *demonstration* of need. Her bill claims to be about "protection", remember? Or did you not read the bill?
***
Island wrote: "I have to wonder if this isn't yet another case where the neodarwinians..."
This is another case where you seem to have some sort of agenda about "neodarwinists" unrelated to Storms' bill. The issue isn't "neodarwinists". The issue is that Storms wasn't happy that the new version of the Florida curriculum provides for students to receive explicit instruction about evolution (no more need to avoid even the use of the word), without a way for religiously-motivated teachers to attack evolution with trumped-up "controversies". One has to wonder if you've ever bothered to read the Wedge Document. Or does that not fit into your diatribes against "neodarwinists"?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( island ) on April 5, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Okay drew, maybe my analogy wasn't the best, but the guy's point was that we can't be sure what may have transpired, since we didn't observe it "live", and you tried to make it appear that the time factor is not an issue, with some example about old light from stars, whatever... so what?... your example isn't comparable. I should have just asked you what your point is, since the conditions and events that may have transpired between the two different observations are incomparably different. So what?... the fact that all observations are after the fact does not mean that they are all equally reliable or unreliable. Quit trying to duck this point and you won't appear like you are *dishonestly* trying to deny it.
"Or does that not fit into your diatribes against "neodarwinists"?"
My "agenda" is against reactionism and dishonesty in science on both sides of the debate, (in case you've never noticed yourself mirroring my own rebuttal of creationists drivel? How soon we forget that I give equal treatment to both), so take your one-sided delusions about me someplace else.
And uh... you've conveniently ignored and even cut out the part where I showed that Storms not-so-hidden agenda, the DI, and even god, herself, have absolutely nothing to do with Storms ability to impose any wedge strategies the way that the laws are written. Then I wondered out loud if this wasn't therefore, indicitive of yet ANOTHER case where you clowns are simply over-reacting without thinking out something that is actually in your favor.
You guys fought tooth and nail against your own righteous selves to prevent them from improving the strength of the standard with the phrase, "scientific theory", because you reacted instinctively to this presumed "wedge stategy" without thinking it through. It would not be surprising to find you all doing it again, so that's what I'm trying to determine.
As if my "diatribe" is just some personal issue that has no real merrit... are you doing it AGAIN, drew? Can you prove to me that Storms can get creationism and "trumped up controversies" into the school system... because my observation is that this cannot happen the way that the law reads, so your paranoia appears to be YET AGAIN completely unfounded, and strictly paranoia driven, reactionism.
Try actually addressing the point that I made, drew, and quit spinning it into something that it is not.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hiskeys ) on April 5, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
4-4, 10:22
Some unresolved matters would include:
* origin of life (and I don't believe that it's fair to take the position that this issue is "SEP", somebody else's problem, since biological evolution wholly depends upon life from non-living materials at some point.)
* the origin of mimicry
* the origin of symbiotic relationships
* the origin of photosynthesis
* the origin of flowering plants
* the origin of reproduction, and then the origin of the many different methods that exist
* the origin of thought/self-consciousness/emotions/altruism
* the exact methods of transition between fish/amphibians/reptiles/birds/mammals
* the origin of metamorphosis
* the glaring lack of transitional specimens, which should be plentiful; after all, the trunk, branches, and twigs of a tree make up much more mass than the leaves in a tree of life.
* the origin of complex, specified information such as the DNA/RNA relationship (information as we know it today, such as software code or paperback novels, has a purposeful origin - an "agent" as its' cause.)
* overcoming increasing entropy; explaining how, in spite of being counter-intuitive, evolution has a sufficient mechanism to create ever-increasing levels of complexity and information with no outside guiding force
I'm sure that many are currently working on these and other issues, but at the present time, but I'm not aware of satisfactory explanations which are widely accepted.
I just think that it would be better to claim that at this time, some pieces of the puzzle fit and some don't.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hiskeys ) on April 5, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
4-4, 11:50
Actually, all observations are not the result of past events. What I meant was simply that most scientific endeavor today is occupied with what can be observed/studied/experimented/refined in the present, rather it's medicine, physics, or nanotechnology.
We can certainly attempt to recreate what happened in the past, and in some cases, that information is necessary to augment current studies.
Genealogy happens to be a hobby, and I have very little information on certain ancestors. Sometimes I have tried to fill in blanks, based on trends in other people, and have been totally wrong. It's better for me to simply tell others that I just don't know that much about what happened to so-and-so in the 1700's.
It seems that evolution damages its credibility when it claims to be "settled science", as Ruth puts it.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 5, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Island wrote: "the guy's point was that we can't be sure what may have transpired"
Since science doesn't claim to be "sure" (science does not make claims of 100% certainty), the point made is a straw man.
***
Island wrote: "you tried to make it appear that the time factor is not an issue"
The original poster strongly implied that it was impossible to observe a past event. I pointed out in response that *all* observations are of past events. Any attempt to distinguish observations of "historical" events and observations of "current" events is inherently artificial.
***
Island wrote: "...with some example about old light from stars, whatever... so what?... your example isn't comparable."
My example clearly illustrates my point that when we observe things "now" we are still observing a *past* event. In some cases, the "current" observation is of an event that took place millions of years ago.
***
Island wrote: "I should have just asked you what your point is"
My point was clear. If you didn't understand it, then yes, you should have asked.
***
Island wrote: "...since the conditions and events that may have transpired between the two different observations are incomparably different."
I note that you merely assert that they are "incomparable" without explaining how. Imagine that!
***
Island wrote: "the fact that all observations are after the fact does not mean that they are all equally reliable or unreliable."
Unless you're going to give us some sort of objective measure of relative reliability, your mere assertion (or that of any other poster) that observations of evolution of modern species from common ancestors over a period of many millions of years is "less reliable" than observations of, say, stellar activity over a period of millions of years, you are doing nothing more than merely asserting that one is "less reliable" than the other.
***
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 5, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Island wrote: "Quit trying to duck this point"
Straw man, as I haven't "ducked" any point here.
***
Island wrote: "...and you won't appear like you are *dishonestly* trying to deny it."
Ad hominem on your part.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 6, 2008 at 12:11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I wrote: "Or does that not fit into your diatribes against "neodarwinists"?"
Island repsonded: "My 'agenda' is against reactionism and dishonesty in science on both sides of the debate"
Pointing out that Storms' legislation is religiously motivated is not "reactionism" nor "dishonesty". Again, where is her evidence for the need for the bill?
***
Island wrote: "How soon we forget that I give equal treatment to both"
That you might publically reject creationism hardly means that you are automatically absolved from criticism for your undeserved attacks against what you term "neodarwinism".
***
Island wrote: "...so take your one-sided delusions about me..."
I have no "one-sided delusions" about you. My opinions of your arguments are based upon your diatribes against "neodarwinism". Sorry to inform you, but your attempts at implying that you are more objective than others here because you happen to criticize both sides doesn't play.
***
Island wrote: "I showed that Storms not-so-hidden agenda, the DI, and even god, herself, have absolutely nothing to do with Storms ability to impose any wedge strategies the way that the laws are written."
That someone can attempt to (and even succeed in) passing unconstitutional legislation is not at issue. The issue (which you still have not addressed) is that the need for the legislation has yet to be demonstrated? If you favor the legislation, then demonstrate the need. If you don't favor it, then exactly what is your point?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 6, 2008 at 12:14 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Island wrote: "Then I wondered out loud if this wasn't therefore, indicitive of yet ANOTHER case where you clowns"
I do like the way you engage in ad hominem. It does nothing to help your argument here.
***
Island wrote: "...are simply over-reacting without thinking out something that is actually in your favor."
There is nothing "favorable" about bad legislation.
***
Island wrote: "You guys..."
Who are "you guys", Richard? Is this your imagined cabal of "neodarwinists"?
***
Island wrote: "...fought tooth and nail against your own righteous selves to prevent them from improving the strength of the standard with the phrase, 'scientific theory'"
It didn't "improve" it, since evolution is both fact *and* theory. Adding "scientific theory" certainly does nothing to inform the layperson of the meanings of the words "fact" and "theory" in science. All it does is send a message along the lines of "see, they had to back down, because evolution is 'only' a theory". I've been an educator for more than 30 years. I know how poorly chosen language can lead to confused (and therefore poor) learning. Adding "scientific theory" perpetuates the confusion that many people have regarding evolution.
***
Island wrote: "...because you reacted instinctively to this presumed "wedge stategy""
There's nothing "presumed" about it. Did you really not read the Wedge Document, Richard? It's not a fabrication.
***
Island wrote: "As if my "diatribe" is just some personal issue"
It certainly comes across that way, since you seem to spend more time criticizing "neodarwinists" for their support of good science than you do criticizing those who would attempt to teach religiously-motivated pseudoscience as if it were science.
***
Island wrote: "Can you prove to me that Storms can get creationism and 'trumped up controversies' into the school system"
The last time I checked, Richard, the burden falls upon the person *advocating* the legislation. That burden has yet to be met. You certainly haven't met it, Richard. When are you going to produce any kind of objective evidence that people are being "discriminated against" in the Florida K-12 system (or in any other state, for that matter) for offering *scientific* opinions regarding evolution?
***
Island wrote: "...because my observation is that this cannot happen the way that the law reads"
Then do tell us what *you* think motivates Storms for putting this legislation forth. We're all ears.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 6, 2008 at 12:50 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
hiskeys writes: "We need to tread lightly and and not throw around phrases like 'settled science' when there are still major unresolved issues."
I responded: "And these 'major unresolved issues' are what, exactly?
hiskeys responded: "Some unresolved matters would include:
* origin of life"
Outside the scope of evolution.
***
hiskeys wrote: "I don't believe that it's fair to take the position that this issue is "SEP", somebody else's problem, since biological evolution wholly depends upon life from non-living materials at some point.)"
Biological evolution depends upon the existence of gravity, too, but that doesn't allow us to conclude that theories of evolution must explain how gravity came into existence.
***
hiskeys wrote: the origin of mimicry
Mimicry provides a selective advantage. So what, exactly, is the "issue", here, to be resolved? What *about* the origin of mimicry?
***
hiskeys wrote: "the origin of symbiotic relationships"
As an example of this has been observed in the laboratory (between a strain of amoeba and a strain of bacteria), what are you suggesting is "unresolved" here?
***
hiskeys wrote: "the origin of photosynthesis"
I don't recall anyone claiming that the origin of photosynthesis has been "resolved", but it is certainly the case that progress has been made in understanding it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB510.html
***
hiskeys wrote: "the origin of flowering plants"
If you're asking *why* they evolved, they evolved because it is beneficial to attract animals that can spread pollen. Nobody is claiming that it is "settled" as to what the earliest flowers were or exactly what DNA changes led to the first flowering plants.
***
hiskeys wrote: "the origin of reproduction"
Outside the scope of evolution, since evolution does not take place until there is already a living thing that can reproduce.
***
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drewsmith ) on April 6, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
hiskeys wrote: "the origin of thought/self-consciousness/emotions/altruism"
Selective advantage. Beyond that, what are you asking about?
***
hiskeys wrote: "the exact methods of transition between fish/amphibians/reptiles/birds/mammals"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC213.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html
***
hiskeys wrote: "the origin of metamorphosis"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB311.html
***
hiskeys wrote: "the glaring lack of transitional specimens, which should be plentiful"
There is no "glaring lack".
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
***
hiskeys wrote: "the origin of complex, specified information such as the DNA/RNA relationship"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI110.html
***
hiskeys wrote: "overcoming increasing entropy"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
***
hiskeys wrote: "explaining how, in spite of being counter-intuitive, evolution has a sufficient mechanism to create ever-increasing levels of complexity and information with no outside guiding force"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002.html
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drdneast ) on April 6, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Dan, is it true that Rhonda Storms was spawned from the loins of Frank Drebins?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BUSHSUX ) on April 9, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Someone should tell Rhonda that her hairstyle went out with the sixties.
Report Inappropriate Comments