TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Storms Tries To Put Evolution Up For Vote
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: March 4, 2008
Updated: 03/03/2008 11:55 pm
TALLAHASSEE - A Senate committee chairman wants to hold a hearing on a proposal from Sen. Ronda Storms to allow public school teachers to contradict the theory of evolution in class.
Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, chairman of the PreK-12 Committee, said he hopes to schedule a hearing during the session on Storms' evolution proposal. Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, confirmed Monday he will file the bill in the House.
But the plan faces plenty of resistance from lawmakers in both parties, who say they are loath to rewrite the teaching standards that the state Board of Education passed last month.
Storms, R-Valrico, filed the "Academic Freedom Act" on Friday to protect K-12 school teachers who present "scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins."
The proposal comes from activists who failed to convince the state Board of Education to adopt the language as part of the state's new science standards. Board members voted to mandate explicitly the teaching of evolution, which they agreed to qualify as a "theory." They did not, however, include any special provision for teaching alternative theories.
Religion's Role Debated
Like the proponents who testified before the board, Storms said her goal is to protect academic freedom and promote critical thinking - not to spread a religious belief about the origin of life.
"It has no provision for intelligent design or Creationism in it," Storms said of her bill. "It provides for academic freedom for the full critical review of the theory of evolution so that people can honestly debate it. And so our students can be presented with all sides of the issue, without fear of attack or their teacher presenting them with one dogmatic view."
In the bill itself, she specifies that it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
Opponents aren't buying it. They continued to deride the plan Monday as religious indoctrination disguised as scientific inquiry.
"Why not just say 'academic freedom' to cover all subjects?" said Brandon Haught, spokesman for Florida Citizens for Science. "Why choose evolution only? It's so transparent, it's ridiculous."
Senate Minority Leader Steve Geller, D-Hallandale Beach, said he was reminded of his high-school days, when he took part in a production of "Inherit The Wind," Jerome Lawrence's and Robert E. Lee's fictionalized drama about the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in which a Tennessee teacher was tried for teaching evolution.
"I never thought I'd be in the Florida Senate in the 21st century, still having the same debate about evolution," said Geller, adding he hopes Storms' bill, which he called "divisive," never gets heard in committee.
Discussion Versus Evangelizing
But Gaetz said the issue merits a hearing, given the intense public interest around the state. A former superintendent and school board member, Gaetz is no stranger to church-and-state issues in education. In 1997, he called for an investigation that eventually led to successful litigation over religious evangelizing by a local teacher and assistant principal.
"I don't want teachers to use their positions as public employees to inculcate their own particular religious views," he said. "I do think it's appropriate in a high-school classroom for a student to draw out students in debate and discussion of questions about science, history, government or religion."
Terry Kemple, president of the Valrico-based Community Issues Council that is backing the proposal, said there is a dearth of concrete evidence supporting Darwin's evolution theory and teachers should be free to discuss that.
Geller called the anti-evolution arguments "pseudo-science."
"I don't care if they say this is 'science,'" Geller said. "You may find a few quack scientists who say it is, but it isn't."
House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, told the Florida Baptist Witness newspaper last month that there may be enough votes in the House to pass the evolution bill. But Schools and Learning Council Chairman Joe Pickens, R-Palatka, said Monday he doubts that.
"The state Board of Education held public hearings; it's their job to do what they did," he said. "My expectation is that there isn't a great deal of appetite to go in and undo what the state Board of Education did in their purview, under their authority."
Reporter Catherine Dolinski can be reached at (850) 222-8382 or cdolinski@tampatrib.com.
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 ( reddijet ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
This is such a good idea to spend valuable Legislative time discussing. We have very low property taxes , cheap homeowners insurance, plenty of good paying jobs with benefits and crime is waaay down. I am so glad our elected officials really have their priorities straight.
What a bunch of religious inbreds!
Can't wait for that special session they call to permanently outlaw 2 piece bathing suits.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:52 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
That she is.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( doc30 ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:40 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( flanders237 ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Religion should never be a part of governing laws particuly education. This is a waste of time & money that could be spent in more productive ways.
Your "gods" are killing people every day!!! Too bad, you just don't get it.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( mgwashburn ) on March 4, 2008 at 9:26 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( MrShrek ) on March 4, 2008 at 9:50 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 10:12 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( billyhires ) on March 4, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Just a brief reminder - the educational system of this nation began with the Bible as its primary text book. My how things have changed.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LarryFarma ) on March 4, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The first thing that the state legislature needs to do is get rid of that stupid statement in the state standards that says that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." That is just plain wrong.
Biologists have an inferiority complex because of the kind of attitude expressed by Lord Rutherford: "all science is either physics or stamp collecting." As a result of this inferiority complex, biologists have been waging a prestige war against other branches of science by boasting that biology has something that the other branches don't have, a grand central unifying principle, evolution.
The Darwinists need to be stopped before this country goes to hell in a handbasket.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
billyhires, yes, they didn't have much to go on in those days. We've come a long way. LarryFarma, Rutherford's attitude was before the discovery of DNA and the development of modern molecular genetics. I don't know any scientist under the age of 80 who would still agree with Rutherford. But more importantly, if the state standard is "plain wrong" what do you believe should be the correct standard?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LarryFarma ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Critics of Darwinism shouldn't stop now. We have had too many defeats. We need a really big victory.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( medguy ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I believe Ms. Storms sees herself as the champion for all that is right. Unfortunately no one else agrees with her point of view. It seems to me she never ceases to attack the moment to keep herself in the media. With all that Florida has to deal with I rank this issue right at the bottom. Maybe her time would be better served burning books that she deems inappropriate. Maybe someone should enlighten this lady on the fact that Florida ranks at the top in foreclosures, or that the state is fastly slipping into a recession. Oh but maybe those issues aren't so important to her being that she is not directly affected by them.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( billyhires ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:14 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
LarryFarma, yes, you are definitely on the losing side of this debate. Perhaps, while you are defeating Darwinism, you'd like to try and use Rutherford's physics to position a flat earth back at the center of the universe?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:21 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( billyhires ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
(Romans 1:18-20) The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( wrongtalker ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rhonda Storms is:
(a) Living proof that the evolution of increased intelligence is not a part of the natural selection process;
(b) A living fossil, thus proving that evolution is a fact of nature;
(c) A mutated subspecies, Homophobus Trailertrashicus, that suggests the progeny of reproduction between humans and farm animals should be barred from public office.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LarryFarma ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
--"LarryFarma, yes, you are definitely on the losing side of this debate. "--
So then you agree with me that we need to continue the battle.
We had some close defeats that should have been victories. For example, the Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish decision against an evolution disclaimer came within one vote of being granted an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and within one vote of being granted a Supreme Court review.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
billyhires,the only "suppressors of truth" in this debate are those who willfully refuse to see the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution. And why do you religious types so quickly resort to threats? Is it that you lack substantive arguments?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
You religious fanatics are always quoting the Bible.
Try thinking for yourself - it's a real hoot!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at noon ( Suggest removal )
LarryFarma, a part of me does want to see you continue the battle. The longer it continues, the more farcical it will become. You are Canute attempting to command the tide. Note that the case you cite did not come within one vote of being decided in your favor, but rather appeal was refused by one vote. Quite different things.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thethyme ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:02 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
As we speak biologists are coaxing the dinosaur DNA from bird DNA – proving an evolutionary link that can be added to the already overwhelming wealth of data supporting evolution.
By simply shutting down (and not adding) certain bird genes, chicken embryos have grown longer tails and even teeth.
What are you going to say when a dino-bird is hatched as a result of gene shutdown?
Will you stop believing in God? After all, you are hanging your faith on the hook of Creationism.
If you’re digging through the rock strata to prove God’s existence – you’ve already lost your faith.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LarryFarma ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Shauna said,
--"Note that the case you cite did not come within one vote of being decided in your favor"--
I didn't say that -- what I said was that the case came within single votes of being granted reviews by the entire appeals court or the Supreme Court. Either review would have been an opportunity for reversal.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
LarryFarma, agreed - I did not say that you did. But you cited the case as a "close defeat," when in reality the case was lost and appeal was refused. I just wanted that clear.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tampaguy69 ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Someone introduce a resolution to have this b***ch institutionalized.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thethyme ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
What is the goal another court case to verify that science is good science???There is no suppresion of science that supports evolution is wrong... this would be huge news, nobel prize winning news. As it stands today any court case will come down on the side that evolution is sound science. Just as it has in the past.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( nomis ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I find it amazing the amount of hate speech from the "liberal left". Those who profess to be tolerant of other ideas are the very ones who are afraid of intelligent debate on a subject that is NOT conclusive. Evolution is NOT a fact!!!. There are plenty of "real" scientist who do not march in lock step with the Darwinian elitist. They see the evidence that clearly contradicts the spoon fed message we have had to endure for the last 100 years from "scientist" who say the miracle of life evolved from some primordial soup simply by chance. Come on! Wake up! If intelligent design fails,let it fail on its own merits. What are you afraid of.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
LarryFarma: Rutherford was wrong. These days, biology is mostly cryptanalysis. I'm afraid, however, "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" is indeed correct. While Dobzhansky's quote that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" overstates matters slightly, it doesn't do so by much. Why else would there be topological similarities throughout the skeletons of the chordates?
tampaguy69: one of the drawbacks of Representative Systems of Government is that the Representatives tend to be representative. That is to say, anyone her district sends isn't likely to be much better. Aside from this particular delusional psychosis, she seems relatively functional in society, and with the cutbacks in Mental Health since Reagan's first election, you have to be a lot crazier than that to be involuntarily institutionalized. Sorry.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thethyme ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:41 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
What are the merits of Intelligent Design, how does it explain things better than evolution, what evidence is there that contradicts evolution via common decent? Evolution says nothing about how life began, that would be abiogenesis this is the study of how life originated. Intelligent design has so far failed on its own merits after 15 years no research has come from it, no new ideas, no new questions or science? Weekly if not daily you can find new science and advances that are forth coming from our understanding of evolution... Evolution is very much a fact... it happened and continues to happen regardless of anyone's metaphysical beliefs. If there should be evidence that mechanism for evolution is something other than natural selection then the theory will be revised. This would not chance the fact that we evolved over time from lesser organisms of a common descent.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:51 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
nomis, without a shred of evidence, you call us "liberal left," "elitist," and intolerant. Then you ask for intelligent debate, but fail to advance a single argument. ID has already flunked on the merits - see Dover. If you have a cogent argument, we're all ears.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Stkfigure ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Evolution or creationsim: It doesn't matter what you believe. Public schools shoud teach science that is based on facts and not faith. Ms Storms should concentrate on property taxes and try not to infect the public with her personal extremist views.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dogworld ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Evolution is not a political movement. Yes, it is the basis of our biology, and in fact is the basis of all our medical advancements in the past 50 years. Religious fervor is an emotional and irrational rabble-based movement based on no science, no fact, and no sense.
We should not have to deal with some splinter religious groups trying to impose their nonsense on our educational system.
There is no scientific basis to creationism. Intelligent Design is a sentence, a buzz word invented to rally the untaught against reason and science. Just like they did in the 12th century.
Rabid uneducated people like Farma can't handle the truth so they want to benight us all. We need to protect our children against these people.
It is a crime that politicians like Storms are using these fundamentalist charlatans to get political power. All need to be ousted from government.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Techrider ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
They all forget that they swear on the Bible to uphold the laws. They seem to think that they swear on the law to uphold the Bible. Storms and her ilk make me sick.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( nomis ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:14 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
To all of you who "religiously" believe evolution: science is the acquisition of knowledge through experimentation finding reproducible results. With-out reproducible results it is not science, it is only theory. Remember the “cold-fusion” fiasco a few years ago? Never in the history of evolution study has reproducible experimentation ever been presented. Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that should be taught as one.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
God created Evolution.
There it's settled.
Now can we get back to the real issues?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Lornonborno, perhaps, but first we need at least one piece of evidence for your statement.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hiskeys ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Evolution still has many serious blank areas, including, but not limited to:
*origin of: self-reproducing life from non-life; complex processes such as photosynthesis and metamorphosis; a wide variety of both animal and plant reproductive methods; symbiotic relationships; language, consciousness, altruism, the arts
*sub-systems and processes with complexity and interaction not explained by gradual development
*a fossil record with appearance of most major phyla in the Cambrian without apparent ancestors & remarkable stasis; unlike what Darwinian gradualism predicted
*natural selection is able to produce variation based only on pre-existing genetic material; it’s a selective phenomenon, not a creative force
We should be honest and not over-confident when presenting a theory which in many respects is not observable or repeatable.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thethyme ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Hiskeys - All these areas are active in scientific investigation. More and More data will come in and fill in these gaps... none of this disproves any of the validity of evolution. Evolution is not a static unchanging theory, if it were then it wouldn't be science. It just further affirms science is an on going process. The lack of information is not a criticism of science it is a strength and leads to further inquiry... The real question is do you have an alternative theory supported by evidence that not only explains the issues you raised above but can also account for everything evolution currently does?
Links for information on the evidence of evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_evidence
Links to objections of evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"Storms Tries To Put Evolution Up For Vote"
Is this airhead going to put gravity up for a vote next?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Shauna -There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. (You Flat-Earthers just don't understand any of it.)
So, either God created it or he didn't.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
hiskeys said: "Evolution still has many serious blank areas, including, but not limited to:"
hiskeys, you're a liar and you know nothing about biology. Everyone knows you creationists don't know anything and everyone knows you're liars. For Christians lying is OK if the lying is to defend Jesus.
lornoborno said: "God created Evolution. There it's settled. Now can we get back to the real issues?"
I agree it would be nice if our worthless politicians actually did something useful instead of attacking science education. I don't agree with your idea that the sky fairy created evolution. Evolution is how the world works. The god hypothesis is not necessary to explain it. Evolution didn't need a creator or inventor.
The only reason there are flat-earthers who deny the facts of evolution is because of the Christian "everything is magic" religion. If this country is going to ever get rid of its total ignorance of science, the Christian religion has got to go.
I know there's a large number of Christians who accept evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that most Christians are afraid of science, they are constantly attacking science education, and they are constantly lying. Sorry, but this country needs to rid itself of the idiotic anti-science Christian religion or else America will fall way behind other countries in scientific progress.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Techrider: one need not swear on the Bible. That would be a religious test, barred by Article VI. Keith Ellison chose to use a Koran for his oath; Jews routinely use the Torah in court. An atheist acquaintance of mine once requested a copy of the Constitution for taking oath in court. On the other hand, far too many Creationists forget that the First Amendment is disestablishmentarian.
nomis: Much of Dembski's writing seems to be based from his book "The Design Inference"; the mathematics there is fatally flawed due to his utter neglect of previous work on the Arithmetic Hierarchy of Complexity. Johnson's quotes are almost universally out of context, and Behe tends to neglect the built-in redundancy of biological systems in his analysis and has given no examples of his proposed "irreducible complexity" that have not been "reduced" in short order.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Lornoborno,
True
I'm not a flat earther
Maybe - could be the "undivided middle" fallacy.
But what's your point?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( mark2901 ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Once again, the forces of abject stupidity arise to smite us in the form of Ronda Storms. Evolution has been "discussed" for nearly 175 years, which is what scientists do - they discuss, test, review and discuss some more. There is no need to legislate "discussion" of evolution - there is still much to be learned about it, which is why it is still "discussed" today.
This is part of something of which Ms. Storms has absolutely no knowledge; it's called scientific inquiry, and it's how sensible people learn things, as opposed to swallowing fairy tails from millenia-old books. This does not, however, mean that Evolution remains a theory. Evolution, just like other former theories such as the Sun as the center of the solar system, the circumference of the earth, and the effects of gravity, has been confirmed as fact. No amount of poorly-disguised evangelistic subterfuge on the part of idiots like Ms. Storms will change that.
Living here in the Bible Belt can sometimes provide graphic illustrations of George Carlin's great observation: Americans seldom get the government they want, but they almost always get the government they deserve.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dogworld ) on March 4, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Evolution is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of facts, most of which have borne out in empiric proof. Too bad God doesn't have that proof. If there were a god it would not need faith because it would be a matter of actual fact. Since it is not I suggest that believers get on the stick and prove it. or shut up.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I don’t have a point for you – I’m just mocking you flat-earth religious fanatics that are driving science and technology out of this country.
Go ahead and teach your kids this creationist drivel and see how far it gets them in college (unless you send them to a religious university).
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
lornoborno, ah! Now I understand. Please take just a moment to look back over my posts. You have mistaken me for someone else. I have been railing against creationism and ID the entire time. Please mock the other folks - they actually enjoy persecution. It makes them feel like Jesus.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
"Lornonborno, perhaps, but first we need at least one piece of evidence for your statement."
...I took that comment as a creationist stance.
Sorry about the friendly fire.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thethyme ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
yes now we can all move on to the real issue of the creationists hogging all the Maple Syrup!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
lornoborno, thanks and no problem. My comment was unclear, but it was aimed at carving God out of your statement using Occam's razor.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( rosie ) on March 4, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Evolution is Truth and it will prevail
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Veedub447 ) on March 4, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Why do the people of Florida keep electing Ronda Storms to public office?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( GONASA ) on March 4, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
If Storms wants a land where laws are based on religion she should go to Saudi Arabia, that way they could smack the crap out of her every time she opens her ignorant pie-hole.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ad ) on March 4, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I would appreciate, as a Florida resident and taxpayer, the members of the Legislature try this year to work on legislation directly benefiting the citizens.
In whole, not just a partial representation.
Rhonda, you hold off on religion and gays, because we have work to do and gays and religion are not fixing the property tax, insurance and important stuff.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( DanPalmer ) on March 4, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Dogworld, please get a decent education. Facts change, there is no truth in facts. Do some study, between the errors and the lies they've shared with us over the years, you just don't know what to think anymore. I was a moron like you once but after getting Plutoed time and again, I realized that they're just guessing! Convention is difficult to keep up with! Some geniuses here still believe that Brontosaurus existed. It didn't. Apatosaurus did. Bronto was a figment created by two separate dinos. But that isn't common knowledge. You probably still believe that XX chromosomes means female! Or that the Bohr model of the atom is fact. So much misinformation through the years! I don't believe in religion, but I can't deny it either. Read William James "The Varieties of Religious Experiences" and you'll see why. You are just as religious as anyone else, you just are ignorant of your religion.
People of so-called "faith" are just more intellectually honest than you foolish "scientism" folks. We realize that there is no apodictic certainty and that EVERYTHING requires faith! Science is based on copious amounts of faith! And the whole religion of evolution is based on philosophy that draws conclusions based on the most scant and questionable evidence. But without another acceptable choice...
The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy ... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers (1992) pp.106-107 Robert Jastrow-Former director of the Goddard space institute.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( DanPalmer ) on March 4, 2008 at 6:49 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rosie, evolution in reductio ad absurdum.
1st law of Biogenesis. Life comes from life. Evolution-life comes from inert chemicals. Evolution-1st law of biogenesis is contradiction. Ergo 1st LAW of biogenesis is wrong or Evolution is wrong.
2nd law of biogenesis. Species bring forth same species. Evolution-a species may change ergo one species gives rise to new species. Evolution-2nd law of biogenesis contradiction. Either the second law of biogenesis is correct or evolution is correct, they are mutually exclusive and contradict one another. Conclusion: Evolution contradicts set laws of Biogenesis and must be false. Simple reductio ad absurdum.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
DanPalmer, I heartily agree that there is no apodictic certainty anywhere, and that there should not be any in science, either. But there is a difference between religious faith and what you call scientific faith. You ignore the element of falsifiability, which is at the core of science but absent from religion. While the theologians endlessly debate, the scientist checks his ideas against reality and changes them as the results dictate. Faith is belief without evidence. The theologian smugly wallows in faith, but the scientist does his level best to minimize it by obtaining relevant empirical evidence. You cannot equate religion and science by comparing the uncertainty still remaining in science with the irrational beliefs that constitute religion.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:01 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Dan, Using the same logic, I can prove that your car could never start. Your error is that these "laws" (which you apparently pulled from some orifice) are mutually exclusive. Simple BS.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( PARKERM ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE INCLUDING THE FOOLS WHO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:16 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Dan, I unapologetically adopt Popper's view of science, which includes the asymmetry that a hypothesis is never proved, but can at best only survive attempts to falsify it. Forming hypotheses is the "guessing" that you refer to, but it is necessarily followed the attempt to empirically falsify the "guess." That is what elevates the method above just guesswork, and above theology.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:24 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( dogworld ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Well, gee, Dan Palmer, I do have an education. Mine is expressed in rational thought not running through a lot of convoluted anger expressed in words that are pompously undecipherable. You clothe yourself in everyone else's thoughts and end up with an incomprehensible rant, interspersed with veiled scatological insults that degrade your own credibility.
It's one thing to believe a fable, but quite another to insist that proven science is a fiction, while demanding that your own proven-as-fiction be installed as education.
Perhaps you should read about the history of Christianity before directing others to your favored books. To save you some trouble there was no Christian religion or Jesus before 328 AD.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( StopTheInsanity ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
DanPalmer said, "Facts change, there is no truth in facts".
DanPalmer said, "I was a moron like you once but after getting Plutoed time and again, I realized that they're just guessing!"
DanPalmer said, "People of so-called "faith" are just more intellectually honest than you foolish "scientism" folks".
The profundity is astounding....................
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
StopTheInsanity, careful - remember this is a man who has thought as long and as deeply as Freud.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( StopTheInsanity ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
DanPalmer said, "1st law of Biogenesis. Life comes from life. Evolution-life comes from inert chemicals. Evolution-1st law of biogenesis is contradiction. Ergo 1st LAW of biogenesis is wrong or Evolution is wrong.
1. There is no such thing as a "1st law of biogenesis". you made it up
2.. Evolution deals with the changes of life AFTER life began on earth and does not talk of "inert chemicals". Besides, there are inert chemicals and reactive chemicals in the periodic table. Were the reactive chemicals on vacation during abiogenesis?
DanPalmer said, "2nd law of biogenesis. Species bring forth same species".
There is no such thing as a "2nd law of biogenesis". You made it up again.
Do you think that making this stuff up is supposed to get you respect from intelligent, independent thinkers?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( StopTheInsanity ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Shauna, the only thing that was long and deep for this one was the 2nd grade............... LOL
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dogworld ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:41 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The real issue is the Constitution and freedom of thought. The law has no business teaching religion. If there are two religions one must be false. If there is one god then only one religion can be true. If there is no god, and the facts point that way, then all religion is false. We only have science and empirical testing to go on. They test a part of evolution and every time so far, it proves out.
Which religion will prove out? Every tenet of religion can be overturned by science and shown that it happens naturally. Because some misguided primitives thousands of years ago thought a hurricane was a punishment of a god -- we still have Christians saying the same thing now. But science has shown that hurricanes occur even where no people are punished. So who do I believe? Some uneducated priest or minister or a scientist?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( StopTheInsanity ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
PARKERM wrote, "IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE INCLUDING THE FOOLS WHO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIM".
Well, why didn't you say so before. This changes everything. Scientists worldwide, you may go home now.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Something is missing - by this stage of the evening we should have been threatened with eternal damnation if we don't just knuckle-under and believe. Any takers? How about you, PARKERM? Do you have a good, old testament dire warning left in you? All caps, please.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I think Dan has gone to the library to get another stack of philosophy books to cite, so I'm off for a little S&M with Ronda.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( GONASA ) on March 4, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Guys...remember these are zealots we're dealing with. Like-minded individuals killed 3,000 on 9/11. Likewise, the ancestors to all the DanPalmer's out there gleefully murdered and pillaged in the name of Christ.
Stop expecting them to see reason. They are incapable of it. They read ancient ramblings in some old book and think they know it all, hence the term - "holier-than-thou."
To all the bible-thumpers - what makes your god any more provable than Zues, Thor, Odin, Loki, Apollo, Mercury, Hera, Ares, Bigfoot, the Loch-Ness Monster or the Easter Bunny?
Exactly - nothing. Heck at least we have photos of Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny shows up at my Mall once a year. I grew out of fairy-tales when I was twelve - you should really give it a try.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( BobCu ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:36 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
dogworld said: "there was no Christian religion or Jesus before 328 AD."
Very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if this is correct. Jesus could be the biggest hoax in history. The liars for Jesus who are constantly attacking science education are lying for a myth.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Zombie ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:45 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Someone needs to send Dan the latest Discovery Institute memo. The new creationist talking points say Big Science is dogmatic and refuses to hear or adopt new ideas. It undermines their argument when he lists examples of how science is updated in light of new evidence or better ideas.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( StopTheInsanity ) on March 4, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Shauna says, "..... so I'm off for a little S&M with Ronda".
S&M? doesn't that stand for Science and Mas****bation??? Maybe the fundies are right. "Gee Mr. Wilson, does science really lead to sin"?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 4, 2008 at 9:55 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( dbracht ) on March 4, 2008 at 10 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I still believed in the Easter Bunny after I knew there was no such BS as God.
We should rethink this no religion test for public office thing. No Baptists allowed.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dogworld ) on March 4, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yes, Shauna. That hair over to one side...adorable. And her huz looks happy, like a preacher after Sunday collections.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dogworld ) on March 4, 2008 at 10:06 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Normally I like to avoid personal invective; it's such a far right Christian thing. But people like Storms just bring out the worst in me.
What gets me about the Christians is that they froth at the mouth if anyone doesn't agree with their beliefs, and can't discuss anything unless they put a religious spin on it.
So I repeat: evolution is not a belief; it's a mostly proven theory of science. When you can prove something you don't need belief or faith. You have facts.
I also know the facts about religion and they disprove the whole crazy mess.
If there were a god we would not have had so many different gods, and so many different religions and cults. There can only be one truth.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( mgwashburn ) on March 4, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yeah, but what about the Eye? The Eye is too complex, god had to create the eye. Ha, just kidding another silly argument by the Creationist Bible Thumpers. Anyone watch the movie 'The Man from Earth'. That movie tends to freak out people like Rhonda.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( smackie13 ) on March 5, 2008 at 12:04 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I will admit, I am a republican, but I am not a right wing nut republican. When the voters of her district elected her I have no idea what they were thinking, they had a chance to elect a solid and expericence republican in Sandy Murman, but they chose instead to elect this nut bag... Oh wait, I remember now they didn't elect Storms becuase they liked her, rather they elected her to get her the hell out of the HC Board! I bet any money she gets re-elected becuase she will pull all the votes from eastern HC which feeds on this crap!!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( StopTheInsanity ) on March 5, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Shauna; she does looks like a poster child for something sinister..........
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 5, 2008 at 10:26 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( StopTheInsanity ) on March 5, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Lornoborno:
You've summed it up very succinctly. So, how do free-thinkers "fight" this trend? The Discovery Institute and their ilk have the wedge strategy and a media engine that has proven very effective. The educational system has allowed many millions of people to graduate with no understanding of science, critical thinking, logical analysis, and skepticism.
So, what tools are we going to employ in the larger society (not here of course) to counteract this trend? Thoughts?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 5, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I believe that most Americans are not right or left wing idealogs. I think most are moderate, sensible people who pick and choose from liberal and conservative ideas based on the merit and logic of those ideas.
The problem is that sensible, moderate people don’t tend to form organizations. If we did, we could consolidate funds and push our own candidates and leaders to the forefront.
You can at least agree that the religious fanatics, communists, and greedy bankers are good at organizing and pushing their agendas (like fire ants).
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( abb3w ) on March 5, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
DanPalmer: Science does not require copious amounts of faith. With the Robbins and Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, you can build mathematics; from there, the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis is sufficient to show science is the method most likely to be correct. The whole of that "creed" is shorter than the Nicene.
lornoborno: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig." (Unless, of course, you like wasting your time by annoying pigs.)The main reason to argue with them is so that naive bystanders don't get too easily persuaded.
StopTheInsanity: in the long run, communities which put up with bad science education will be at an economic disadvantage, which may tend to reduce their numbers. This, however, doesn't mean the communities won't go to hell in a handbasket (so to speak) beforehand.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( johnt ) on March 5, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Wow. If you've read this far down, then you've probably noted the anti-religious slant of the posts.
How refreshing! It's about time people started to wake up from the "fog of religion" and enjoyed reality. I understand the fear of shedding your faith, but "wanting" something to be true does not "make" it true.
If you want to confuse YOUR kids, do it at Sunday school.
P.S. Check out the reaction of readers talking about the Without Walls Church going up for sale on the other page: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/04/tampas-without-walls-church-sale/
Life is good.
Thanks you for your educated comments. You know who you are.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ChetBroadhurst ) on March 7, 2008 at 2:56 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I would offer that those who promote creationism/I.D. suffer from a type of fear peculiar to the small-minded: They fear that, without the over-arching protection of an agency (God) upon which to hang responsibility for their own creation and upon whose glory to hitch their destiny-wagon, they will have to fall back on their own inadequate devices to determine right from wrong. Surely, being mere humans (although claiming the apex of so-called creation), we cannot possibly have any way to determine right from wrong without the omniscient guidance of a God - “Great Sky-Father” - who himself exhibits the manners and ethics of a spoiled child.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ChetBroadhurst ) on March 7, 2008 at 2:58 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
And another thing -
“Whosoever quoteth scripture endlessly hath neither job nor hobby.”
II Mumbleonians 3:22
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( theoldman ) on March 9, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rhonda Storm's bill merely falls right in line with the Religious Right's mantra...
"No child left in thought" !
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( XaurreauX ) on March 13, 2008 at 11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Floridians should consider electing adults to public office rather than creationists.
Report Inappropriate Comments