TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Evolution Dissent Advances
Tribune photo by COLIN HACKLEY
Sen. Rhonda Storms, R-Valrico, left, responds to Sen. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton. Deutch cast the only vote Wednesday against Storms' bill.
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: March 27, 2008
TALLAHASSEE - It's not about letting religion creep into science classrooms, Sen. Ronda Storms insisted.
It's about protecting the rights of students and teachers who don't agree with the science behind Darwinian evolution, the Republican from Valrico argued before the Senate's pre-k through 12 education committee voted 4-1 Wednesday to approve the bill.
Despite her argument, religion kept coming up anyway, as Storms pressed for her "academic freedom" act. Her bill would allow public school teachers to present science-based alternatives to Darwin's theory of evolution, a theory written into Florida's curriculum standards and one that is held as a fundamental concept of biology by most members of the science community.
Although professors spoke in opposition to the bill and a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union said it would open the door to teaching creationism, the committee voted to move the bill forward.
"Evolution will still be taught as a matter of law. This bill does not undo the current standard," Storms said. She added, "It's interesting for me to note that the only folks who brought up religion today have been those in opposition."
A debate about evolution has been swirling in the Capitol since last month, when the state Board of Education adopted the state's new science standards, which mandated teaching evolution. Activists persuaded the board to qualify evolution as a "theory," but the board did not write in any special provision for teaching alternative beliefs.
Storms filed her bill at the start of the legislative session. Conservative activists rallied around her, with actor Ben Stein, best known for playing a boring teacher in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," showing up in Tallahassee to screen his controversial documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a film about scientists and educators who challenged natural selection and Darwin's evolution teachings.
Those who oppose Darwin's theory of evolution aren't all religiously motivated, backers said Wednesday, although Sen. Larcenia Bullard, D-Miami, made her views clear when she said she thought kindergartners should not be taught Darwinian evolution because "that may be brainwashing." She also told the committee of her own experience in college, where she refused to answer a science exam question about evolution with the accepted Darwinian answer and instead copied down the creation story in Genesis, Chapter 1.
Sen. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, who cast the lone dissenting vote Wednesday, echoed what a staff analysis of the bill said - that there have been no complaints about teachers or students saying they were discriminated against because they presented an alternative scientific theory of evolution.
"What we heard today was the suggestion that there are people of faith who have some objections and they're not permitted to raise them," Deutch said.
Although he thinks students should be allowed to debate things philosophically, those debates do not belong in the science classroom, he said.
The bill's next stop is the Senate judiciary committee.
Reporter Nicola M. White can be reached at (850) 222-8382 or nwhite1@tampatrib.com.
Reader Comments
Posted by ( dennisjb ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:12 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Awwwww good grief parents for the sake of argument....Teach yer children creationism....the schools don't wanna do it!!Teach them to understand evolution and have the knowledge to get them through their classes....Jesus said to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.It's all gonna be taken care of eventually anyway....my goodness!! There are people out there starving,homeless....children killing one another,parents and children killing one another...seems to me there are other priorities not being addressed
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( janjerri1 ) on March 27, 2008 at 5 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rhonda, Rhonda, Rhonda...that is why we love you, bring up the children! That is the way to keep you in the spotlight. You could always let the parents that wants send them to a hmmm, I don't know say...Christian School. Why not focus on something that matters now like the state of the economy...naw your right let's fight about something that will ensure you name makes the paper. We were wondering if you got lost there in the big pond haven't heard anything about "the children" or gay bashing from you in a while.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( motorist ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Science-based alternatives? Rediculous.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hazman ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Storms said, "It's interesting for me to note that the only folks who brought up religion today have been those in opposition." - nope, because they do not want to bring public attention to their actual agenda. They made their religious statement when they proposed this bill. Attend Ronda's church services sometime, it's right out in the open there.
dennisjb makes it perfectly clear that this is very much a matter of one group trying to impose their own beliefs on everyone else - that's what evangelism is.
I agree with janjerri1 that parents who feel that strongly about creationism can send their kids to any school they want. Why should everyone else have to tolerate misinformation in our public schools because of one religios group - no matter how big and powerful they are?
And make no mistake about it - we all dance around the obvious, but we know exactly how certain politicians are kept in office, and what their true agendas are. Again, attend their own church services and it will be right out in the open.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( crowbarlip ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
We are no doubt the dumbest state in the union. I am ashamed of my state and I am a multi-generational native. And don't you idiots suggest I move either. I will try and improve things and swim against the tide of ignorance that keeps washing over this state which is now inhabited by undereducated rejects from other places. For those of us who have used reason to reconcile faith with science and have realized an even more complex beauty keep subtly trying to educate our quaint, superstitious brothers and sisters. Tell them that using their brains can be a good thing and that doing so will not cause the man in the sky to hurt them.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( kjterz ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
let it go...your god is dead...
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hatsoff ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Another reason that Florida is a national laughingstock.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
We need to get this stupid ignorance monger away from our schools.
CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE!
We’re having enough of a hard time in this country bringing up the skills of our workers without morons like Ronda Storms trying to keep our students ignorant.
Creationists are too stupid to argue with and Ronda is one of the most stupid.
The real agenda of Creationism is keep people ignorant so they can be exploited and manipulated.
Meanwhile our jobs go to India.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( gatormb ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
janjerri1. Very good point. Please let Rhonda know where she can pick up her school voucher.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Budbkind2u ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
You know how people allways ask "how come they can't get anything done in Tallahassee" here is you answer!!!!
Teach evolution and leave it at that. If someone wants there kid to know about something else, then it should be up to the parent to teach it, and THEY should pay for it THEMSELVES!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( picogator ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rhonda Storms at it again...storming and storming like she did in Hillsborough County, always getting her name in the headlines. And then to read about those in committee who supported this legislation. What dumbos we have in Tallahassee. Laugh at us Floridians, world, laugh at us.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( RobKay ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
crowbarlip, nicely put. I agree but boy is it going to be an up-hill battle. No matter how many times Storm's bill is defeated, she'll just keep renaming it and coming back with it untill eventually she gets what she wants regardless of what the majority wants. Thats when her real motives will come into play. In the meantime she'll just keep wasting our time and money playing the spoiled child. How sad the few are allowed to control the many.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( jon_boy ) on March 27, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The worst part about it is that we are supposed to be preparing our children for college....Do you think in a college science class they are teaching creationism?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( gatormb ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Lornoborno. Evolution is not science either. That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. It's unproved and unprovable. It's intellectual suicide to think that our ancesters are worms. Me thinks when you think you hear an echo.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Folks, this really is more simple then you are making it. Forget the actual topic for a minute. Pick any topic in any subject, lets say for arguements sake that topic A is what the majority may believe happened, but has not been proven 100% correct and another group offers a different explination that has not been "disproven", then certainly you discuss both possibilities until one is disproven (not just opinion disproven, but scientifically disproven). Certainly the majority of the discussion should go to the topic that has more physical evidence, but the other theory should still be discussed as it is STILL a possibility. That is it period!
Here is another example - I watched a tv show on the "Universe" the other night showing a theory of an alternate "death star or nemesis" to our sun. Most stars come in pairs or triplets so it would make sense that this is a possibility. It has not been proven yet, but it also has not been DISPROVEN, so it is in the discussion. Scientific theories change everyday as we gain more proof or evidence to disprove a theory. The only reason this is a "hot" topic is because "religion" is being used to show another "possibility". Creationism has not been disproven! Perhaps not all of the evidence is there, but it has not been disproven. Until you can officially eliminate it as a possibility due to overwhelming evidence, it must remain a possiblity, therefore should remain a topic of discussion. Evolution should be the main focus of the discussion as the topic is scientific in nature, but all other possibilities should at the least be mentioned in footnotes.
Personally, I don't agree with Ms. Storms bill, but not for the reasons you folks have mentioned. I also find it interesting that many people on the "evolution" side, keep using the arguement that others beliefs are being pushed "down their throats" by this bill (specifically when dealing with evolution as a topic). Kettle, meet my friend the pot! Evolutionists (if they are truly using science as the answer and not just opinion) must (by the evidence presented or not presented) admit that creationism has NOT been eliminated or disproven as a theory. Therefore the evolutionists seem to be the ones who are trying to shove their "opinion" down others throats in allowing it to be the ONLY option discussed. True scientists would discuss ALL possibilities, no matter what the topic. Just a scientific observation.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
You can't DISprove that the real reason that your transmission works is because there are little elves in there rowing their butts off. They just disappear if you open the casing, see?
You can't prove a negative, so the fact that something isn't DISproved doesn't put it in the domain of science. In order to be in that domain, there must be evidence that supports it. It also is useful if the hypothesis is grounded in reality and doesn't involve invisible omnipotent intelligences mojoing magic in the void.
Sure, let's teach scientifically based dissent. Dissent and disagreement and different interpretations of data are all part of scientific advance.
So, let's stick to science and we'll be fine. No problem.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Longball ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The THEORY of evolution is exactly what it means. We are to teach the students scientific based facts about the theory of evolution. And for those teachers opposed to having to teach the THEORY of evolution I suggest you find another subject to teach. I have read the stories in the Bible and yes I will probably burn in hell's fury because I teach the THEORY of evolution based on scientific facts as they are presented. I cannot deny what has been discovered about our Earth's past history. But I present to those who call evolution hogwash, where does it say how long a day was in God's eyes. We only know what day is because we as human kind decided 24 hours would be a day. So why couldnt a day in God's life be a million years. And after all, I have a forgiving god and when my judgement day comes and I stand before him. I am confident he will see a humbled servent to his teachings and grant me entrance into his kingdom. Then I will be able to ask him how long it took him to create all we have around us. So I dont understand all the fuss. Teachers do your job and parents teach your kids
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Yankee ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Why not let us tax payers decide whether or not this is something that we want taught to our children? After all, they are OUR kids.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:29 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
We all know that it is only a matter of time before Sen. Storm gets caught doing the wide stance in the ladies room.
All of these self-righteous religious fanatics are just Nazi perverts just under the surface.
I think Storms, Stein and all of the other ignorance mongers should travel together – then we can all pray for a plane crash. It’s the only way to get these scums out of our hair.
By the way Gatormb , ALL science is theory – that’s how science maintains its integrity.
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY is a science.
But your voodoo, magic, ooga-booga Creationism is NOT.
Also, I wish these morons would stop saying “Darwinism” - Darwin originated the concept but the science has advanced far beyond Darwin’s original postulations.
Stop Being Ignorant!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Budbkind2u ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
cshultz110,
You bring up some good points.
My thing is you can not teach creationism with out bringing up God, and God has NO PLACE IN SCHOOLS in any way what so ever.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Gatormb
no no NO!!!
You don't get it!
It is called "Theory" because it IS science. See, that's how SCIENCE works: You postulate a hypothesis and then you research it. If what you turn up in your research supports your hypothesis you can conclude it was correct. If your research DOESN'T support your hypothesis, say you thought something was six thousand years old and you find rocks that are three billion years old, then you must abandon your original hypothesis.
That IS science. Until something is proven beyond a doubt, it is called a "Theory." That doesn't mean it's not valid, or that it isn't true. It means that there are differing opinions about the interpretation of the present data and questions about parts of the conclusion. That's why MOST conclusions in science are considered "Theories." The date is incomplete and there are differing interpretations and possibilities.
When you believe something going in and no matter WHAT the concrete physical evidence reveals you continue to hold that belief, THAT'S faith!! Wonderful thing! Miracles come from there.
Electricity comes from science. Cars come from science. Space craft come from science.
All based on ever-sharpening and expanding "Theories."
That's why we teach science in the public schools and faith in our homes and churches.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yankee - I completely disagree (within reason) of letting the taxpayers decide. Frankly, the taxpayers (a lot of them anyway) barely have a high school diploma themselves. They can barely decide what to wear today. Secondly, then the taxpayers get to decide what NOT to teach (dangerous). Example - If I am Iranian (correct me if I have the wrong country as I am not 100% certain), perhaps I don't want the holocaust taught because I don't believe it took place!!! This idea was in the news a few years ago, but is it true??? No, it is just an opinion! Before you think that what I am saying sounds rediculous, just reread all of the posts on this subject!
If we leave education decisions to the taxpayers, the teaching of foreign languages will be a topic, science will be a topic, the arts will be a topic and even math will be a topic (whether or not to use dollars instead of pasos or yen). Come on folks, you are seriously blowing this way out of perportion.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( doc30 ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
There are no scientific alternatives to evolution. This bill is designed to let people who claim ID (creationism in disguise) to enter it into science classes without penalty. So now those who choose ignorance can get a pass in science class. If this bill passes, it will put the 'duh' back in Flori-duh.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Budbkind2u - Thank you, but I believe that there is a middle ground and a solution. Here is my thought -
EVERYONE - When dealing with the idea of creation (be it evolution, creationism, what ever someone thinks or believes) in the science class, simply give this disclaimer (this may need a tweeking, but you get the general idea)
"Students, today (or for the next several lessons) we are going to discuss the topic of the "theory of evolution". We intend to stay on topic although many of you will have different ideas or thoughts on the subject. You are welcome to agree or disagree on the subject, however our discussions at this time will remain on the "theory of evolution". "Creationism" is an option that you may openly discuss at home or with your parents or in your church. We do not want to impead on your beliefs and we in the school district respect your beliefs on this subject. We, as scientists conceed that creationism has not been "disproven", however since most of the evidence given supports the "theory of evolution" and since this is a science class, that will remain the topic at hand. The seperation of church and state draws a fine line of what can and what cannot be discussed in relation to "creationism" and in an effort to not offend any religion, we are choosing to allow that discussion to take place at home and at your church. When testing on this material, we respect that you may disagree with the "theory of evolution" and will only be testing on the evidence provided from the Darwinian point of view. When answering the test questions, we recognize that you are not agreeing or disagreeing with the "theory of evolution", but mearly answering the questions with the information given in this class to form the best possible answer. With that, lets begin our discussion of the "theory of evolution".
Was that SOOO hard??? No one will probably like it though, because it MAKES SENSE!!! It might actually end this debate, and we can't have that now can we.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Shauna ) on March 27, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I do not understand how Storms can so blatantly lie about her motives. Doesn't she know that her faith forbids bearing false witness? Why push so hard to promote one's religion by breaking its basic rules? There's disease here.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( lornoborno ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Talking about taxpayers:
Storms has a lot of nerve accepting the pay for this public funded job and then using the position to push her personal agenda.
If she’s worried about alternate views – where’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster in her Bill? Prove the FSM doesn’t exist.
Perhaps he reached into her little bone head with a noodley appendage and pulled out her brain?
It is hard for me to express how much I despise this stupid Nazi-cow scum queen.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ozzythewarrior ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Budbkind2u, "Pledge Of Allegiance" One nation under God is still taught in school. Church and State needs to stay away from each other.Dont teach anything about God in school and dont talk politics in churches
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Phenom ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Science is ever changing and can be used to explain just about anything. "Theoretical physics can prove an elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, but use your eyes -- your common sense..." Jim Garrison stated in US court while trying to disprove the magic bullet theory...
Science to me is nothing more than mankind attempting to understand our creator's wonders. Why does the theory of evolution make religion false and vise versa? Our universe was created by something right? Makes sense to me that it was most likely a God of some sort that had a hand in that.
Oh, and if someone with a scientific background could let me know which came first, the chicken or the egg...that'd be great, otherwise I will ask my God when the day should come that I meet him.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( davidkc ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yet another example of why Florida continues to lag further behind other states in educational attainment, and why the United States continues to fall farther behind other countries in its students' comprehension of science. Creationism is not science, and it has no place in a science classroom. Period. Ms. Storms, don't you have better things to worry about, like how to deal with Florida's sinking economy and skyrocketing insurance rates and property taxes?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( infcol ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Any such compromise bill and/or law is SIN!! Evolution should be banned from school curriculums. The ONLY permissible education track should be CREATIONISM, as related by the KING JAMES version of The Bible; NO OTHER VERSION SHOULD BE PERMITTED!! Those who advocate ANY other educatiolnal track should be burned as sinfull heretics!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Budbkind2u ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
you know we could all chip in and send her a strip-a-gram, we all know how she just loves stripers
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Phenom ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The King James version of the Bible was changed and altered (through translation) from it's original version...Jesus spoke scripture from such sources as (what is known today as) the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls....
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
So what I have learned here is that most of you are not interested in finding a solution, you just want something to complain about. I gave a wonderful solution that met everyones needs and not one person has discussed it. Now I understand why our society is going to hell in a handbasket. It is not about God or the lack of God (atheism), but rather that we are just a bunch of dumb animals. If the "theory of evolution" is correct, then perhaps it has only taken place physically, because I don't see many changes from apes mentally!!! This is exactly the reason that taxpayers shouldn't make educational decisions.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( steves542 ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Seeing Stormy makes me feel all funny inside. Like when I climbed the rope in 6th grade.
By the way...I have November 2008 in the prostitute/stripper/lover/criminal comes forward implicating Stormy.
As bad or weird as she is, just like George W. The Moron...you elected her.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
infcol - Nice radical thinking. there is a group in the middle east looking for your kind of passion and radical thinking. I think we call them . . . AL QUIDA!!!
Come on man, I am a Christian and even I think you sound like a radical extremist. Your point of view is great for a Christian school, but not for a public school. If your goal of evangalism is to bring people to Christ as the good book says, you just failed miserably! You have alienated the very people you are trying to reach. Perhaps you should have a seat, relax and open up your bible and not just read, but HEAR and LISTEN to what God and Jesus say. May I suggest John 16:33?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Budbkind2u ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
yea and that is where I fight with my self, as I think the Pledge Of Allegiance should stay in schools the way it is. I know, I know, I can't have it both ways.
Is it funny that I don't realy belive in a god, yet I find nothen wrong with the Pledge Of Allegiance? May-be it's cause it doesn't say under THE GOD, or OUR GOD, or something like that.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Phenom...
Exactly!
Your belief in your creator comes BEFORE your exploration of the universe and so, science looks like man's attempt to explain it!
Religion cannot be confirmed by science and science cannot be disproved by religion. They are two separate domains. One REQUIRES evidence, the other must IGNORE it.
No problem with either of those things. One is intensely personal and involves one's relationship with spirit and the other is public and involves one's relationship with STUFF.
Would you say it might be possible that God used physical law and evolution to create the universe and the life in it?
Just a possibility. And: there is such a diversity of experience with spirit and it is such a personal thing that I don't think it is the appropriate material for public school teaching.
That's all.
and BTW ... If you want to discuss Creationism and Intelligent Design in school, that's fine. The discussion requires the disclaimer:
"There ARE those who believe the complexity and diversity of life requires the existance of a Creator. We will discuss those beliefs in the context of scientific theory. Speak to your pastor, priest, rabbi, imam, deacon, shaman, wizard, elder, preacher, mom and dad for specifics of your particular tradition."
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Budbkind2u ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
cshultz110,
your idea is not a bad one, I see how something like that could work. Tell you the truth I think it's a good idea. I remember back when I was in school, we didn't seem to spend a lot of time on the "where did man come from" thing. It was a long time ago so I could be wrong.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
OH!!!
Phenom ...
I forgot ... that "chicken or the egg" thing ...
Here's the answer:
It's a nonsense question.
Neither came first. They developed together.
THERE ... you can mark that one off your list!!
You're welcome.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
'Evolution is not science either.'
That's going to come as a quite a revelation to thousands of biologists worldwide.
'That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. It's unproved and unprovable.'
Evolution is not science thats why it's call a theory??? Obviously you are unfamiliar with what a theory is in science. Or science in general apparently.
'It's intellectual suicide to think that our ancesters are worms.'
Yours might be. ;-)
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Budbkind2u - Thank you again. I agree. The irony of this whole conversation is that it doesn't matter to anyone at the moment. From a school perspective (not a personal one), who cares where we came from. Educationally, can you read? Can you write? Can you logically make decisions. I know to scientists and religious alike, it is important (not trying to downplay it), but seriously it is like the chicken and the egg question. In the end, what does it matter at that moment??? Do I really care at the moment I am eating a steak???
It IS an important "personal" question!!! That however, is not a school issue. The school systems job is to educate based on physical evidence and behaviors (I am a strong Christian and even I believe this), so give the information and move on. Throw in the disclaimer I mentioned, discuss the issue at hand and move on, for crying out loud. Believe it or not, there are a lot more topics in science to discuss BEYOND evolution and creation.
When I was in school, the big topic was "Heredity vs. Environment" which is not even a discussed topic anymore. "This too, shall pass".
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
diego_schmiago - I would like to get your take of my post today on this topic in regards to my proposed "disclaimer". Just curious of your thoughts.
Also, I think Budbkind2u was actually refering to the fact that we say "under God" vs. OUR God or THE God.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( steves542 ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Does Stormy wear t backs ? Maybe lace ones, mmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe she goes commando...double mmmmmmm.
I love when people answer responses by quoting the Bible. Do you really think a person who doesn't believe in the Bible is going to suddenly say "Ohhhhh, that's the answer." Better yet...offer to pray for all of the sinners. Make sure Stormy is first on your list.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
diego_schmiago - I also like your use of the term "religious zealots". (really, not giving a hard time. I actually do like it.) But you do realize that it also opens the door to the use of the term "Evolutionary zealots" or "scientific zealots"??? lol
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Phenom ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
JackNelson: You are trying to "argue" a point to a person that already gets it. Science is one of the many hobbies I have spent a "lifetime" studying and practicing. Religion is something I have studied and practiced for equally as long. "Would you say it might be possible that God used physical law and evolution to create the universe and the life in it?" Yes?? I know that dinosaurs became birds and that homonid creatures developed into "Mankind"..etc etc etc...all of those thing are otherwise known as "God's Creations"...science is the tool that I as a human use to try to understand those creations. I do not ignore anything from the scientific communtiy because of my faith. The two go hand in hand if you ask me....
Those views that I have on ID, just like evolutionary views, should not be force fed to people. A law requiring children to learn only the theory of evolution will one day bring our nation to that of a godless society.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
'A law requiring children to learn only the theory of evolution will one day bring our nation to that of a godless society.'
First off, there is no law requiring this. It is an educational standard. Not quite the same thing. (Civics 101)
Secondly and in regards to your 'godless' comment, you would be correct *IF* evolution was the ONLY thing taught in schools. Which, of course, it is not. And if we become a godless nation, then organized religion has failed miserably.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ou812g ) on March 27, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
WTF is wrong with people? What color is the sky in your world? This should be taught in Sunday school and not in our public schools ever. I suppose we should teach the kids that Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are real as well? If you want to believe some man made book with a bunch of feel good stories that teach people right vs wrong thats fine but don't ever try and confuse it with having any scientific merit. It's make believe, not real, a bunch of fairy tales, and has no business in any public classroom. Rhonda had a great role in the new film "The Mist" where her true colors shined through, if you haven't seen it you'll know what I'm talking about after you do. Darwin Rules!!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
diego_schmiago - Thank you. You make good points. As an educator I will disagree on that it should NOT be in science class. Actually it is the perfect place for the disclaimer so that it will STOP the debate IN science class. I agree that science class is not where the debate should be, therefore the disclaimer is perfect for it. (kind of like the "hot" disclaimer on a McDonalds coffee cup. It "shouldn't" have to be there, but it NEEDS to be there because we have people in our society who don't know any better.)
As for the issue with - "We, as scientists conceed that creationism has not been "disproven". I think it quells the real debate which is that Evolutionists do not want anyone saying to them that Creationism is the "only reasonable answer" anymore then Creationists want to hear that Evolution is the "only reasonable answer". I think it is good middle ground and agreeable to all without giving up their "personal ground". The use of the word conceed (not by the science teacher themself, but from the school district or Florida Department of Education as the governing body) is important as it shows that they are not taking a polar stance, but are rather making an effort not to offend those with a religious viewpoint. I gave it a lot of thought and I think the terminology is correct. The major debate is that Evolutionists are portrayed as believing that evolution is the ONLY answer and that they are not considering the reality that Evolution has not been proven 100% conclusive. Although having a lot of evidence (which is what the entire science class and topic are about) it has not been taken to its conclusion, therefore allowing other theories such as Creationism to be a valid option (allbeit, not a scientifically supported theory or at least not to the scientific evidence that is given to support Evolution.) I believe that the terminology is correct and helps to provide the middle ground that the Creationists are searching for.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Phenom ) on March 27, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Mike: Err, ummm....my "bad". Sorry for throwing the word "law" around like it was my own to do so. I will be sure to attend the next civics class that I am able to attend to correct that. Thanks for "pointing" that out to me.
But, am I missing something here or what? Isn't this "bill" about having the right to "teach" something other than Evolution (which I believe in fully regardless of my religious faith) since it is the only accepted theory that Florida requires to be taught in the "classroom"??
As for organized religion "failing miserably"...I would think it is doing just fine seeing that more than 80% of the world's population practices one...???
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( patches ) on March 27, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
This woman is a real wacko!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Repsolman ) on March 27, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I always love this hot button issue and everytime it comes up, the arguments on both sides remain the same. Nice to see the compromise by cshultz this time.
This is not an argument about science vs religion. It is simply an argument over beliefs. One that brings out the passions relative to the intensity of ones beliefs. Reverse the situation and ask why there is not an uproar that churches teach only creationism and not evolution. The answer seems boiled down to consequences. If you are a strict evolutionist and go to church, you hear creationism and by your personal convictions can just ignore what you hear or get up and leave if you wish and go about your business. On the other hand, if you are a creationist and go to school you hear evolution. You however cannot just get up and walk out, nor can you ignor it. You don't have to accept it but guess what, you are tested on it and those test results have consequences.
Perhaps the simple solution is to understand that this is an issue that crosses church and state boundaries when it comes to peoples beliefs and as such to remove the consequences so although one hears evolution, you are not penalized for not buying into it.
Schools can teach the "science" of evolution and the churces can teach "faith". Neither party holds a punishment for those that don't believe in their teaching.
I am puzzled why diego- is adamant about not discussing cshultz's disclaimer in science class. That is where this issue comes up. I'm sure it would confuse the kids considerably to bring this up in any other class that it has no relation to. Seems more prudent to address the issue where the issue arises.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
No problem, Phenom.
And the bill isn't about the 'right' to teach something other than evolution. It is to prevent punishment or other censure if another 'theory' is taught. Close but there is a difference. But you are correct, it is the only theory currently required to be taught.
One small correction, I didn't say organized religion has or will fail. I was suggesting that *IF* it did, it would be it's own failing. (And you were talking about the country, not the world.)
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hazman ) on March 27, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
gatormb, get real. The difference between Science and Faith is that one can be proven (evolution) and one is based purely on belief (creationism).
Do you still have sabertoothed tigers roaming your neighborhood? Because in mine, they've pretty much evolved into more modern creatures.
Have you ever heard of those things called fossils? They can carbon date them and determine that they are much older than your creationist timeline allows.
One might not be proven to your satisfaction (and never will be), but the other is just out and out BS.
Here's a thought for all you creationists: What if God used Evolution to create us all? How arrogant you must be to think that you know every every option that your God had in Creation! Isn't that the same thing as putting yourself on the same level as God?
I have to hand it to you though - Creationism is a brilliant scam, because you never have to prove anything. You just "challenge" the faithful to believe.
Propaganda at it's finest.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( timk ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
“Lornoborno. Evolution is not science either. That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution. It's unproved and unprovable. It's intellectual suicide to think that our ancesters are worms. Me thinks when you think you hear an echo.”
If an ignorant statement like that isn’t an indictment of our education system, what is? Apart from having no idea what evolution is, science is, or a theory is, this dimwit hit it right on the head.
Then along comes an idiot like Storms who thinks we need less science. But what really galls me about this airhead is that she thinks I am stupid enough to believe her when she says it has nothing to do with religion. We have got to stop electing stupid people.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
On a side note, I do have a serious question. (This is a real question, I am not giving anyone a hard time. I am not a scientist, but I really want to know). If evolution has taken place and men evolved from apes, why are there still apes around??? Shouldn't they have evolved???
Hazman (by the way, I think you meant to direct your last blog to someone else) you mentioned the fact that sabretooth tigers no longer exist because they evolved. Shouldn't that same arguement be used in the case of apes? (Once again, please do not think I am being sarcastic. I mean no disrespect. I really want to know.)
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
OK, here goes...
Evolution does not say that man evolved from apes. What it does say that man AND ape evolved from a common ancestor and that ancestor was neither man nor ape. Therefore, apes are still around for the same reason man is. We started at the same place.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Evolution is proven? Since when?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
By the way, I should add that both ape and man -- as well as other critters -- continue to evolve.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
And pray tell by whom?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
InAtlanta, evolution is a fact and well documented. What is open to conjecture is the exact mechanism(s) that cause evolution. This is the Theory of Evolution.
Gravity is a fact, how it works is the Theory of Gravity.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( steves542 ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
InAtlanta - Other than in the Bible....Creation is proven since when ?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
MikeF - Thank you for the answer. I do appreciate it. I have asked many times and have never received an answer (I am guessing that most people on TBO think I am just being a butt and trying to patronize the evolution theorists!) By chance do you or anyone else know what creature it is that we are to have evolved from?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
One question leads to a new question - If man and ape evolved from the same place, why didn't they evolve into the same being? Are there any other examples of a being evolving into two seperate types of beings? I am now incredibly curious.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It is still a somewhat in question since it is difficult to be certain, as ancestors evolved, which of them exactly became us and which became dead ends (as most apparently did). It has also been a continuous process so that it would be impossible to draw a line somewhere and say "that's where we started'. Much like researching your own family tree.
We continue to fill in the gap as more evidence is discovered but it may still be some time before we have filled out the entire 'family tree'
This may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Not the same place. The same ancestors. Ancestors who lived in different places, faced different evironments and different challenges.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Sorry MikeF. Evolution has never been proven.
BTW: It is the Law of Gravity, not Theory of Gravity. Gravity can be proven (made law) with quantitative reproducible experiments.
Never in the history of evolutional science has quantitative reproducible experiments ever been presented. Until this takes place, there will always be the ongoing argument as to the origin of life.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Phenom ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Information taken from Wikipedia is like asking a two year old for directions to Disney Land, it might sound right but should be taken lightly. Anyone can type whatever they feel without citing where and how the information was found...do not trust wikipedia to rely on factual insight to any topic....Mike I will discuss more if you'd like just as soon as I fold the rest of my laundry.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 1:59 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Newton is Law. Einstein is Theory.
And for the hundredth time, genius, evolution does not address the origins of life. But you know that don't you? You just like repeating this same old tired nonsense hoping someone will buy into your crap.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( cshultz110 ) on March 27, 2008 at 2 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Thank you MikeF
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Sorry if it seemed I was suggesting that Wikipedia was gospel ;-) It was just a readily available and concise example of the type of information asked for.
Good luck with the laundry. I've already done mine.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Great questions.
Everything presently here is the most advanced of its type. It is the "latest model" containing all the successful (read "surviving") traits of its ancestors.
If a single ancestor's progeny experience different environmental circumstances, say through migration or some other more subtle changes in the environment, the ones with the most useful traits for those new circumstances survive and pass those traits down.
Over thousands (and thousands)of generations, you see the emergence of distinctly different animals. All from the same ancestor.
That's what it looks like to me.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( InAtlanta ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
So MikeF, you would rather make disparaging personal comments then present actual scientific studies proving your claims?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
You have been given the information repeatedly - here and on other forums - which you conveniently ignore. So why should I go to the trouble of typing up references that you will again ignore? You don't want facts. You simply want your own way.
To quote "You can't handle the truth!"
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
And I apologize for referring to you as a genius. I should know better.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Saaaay ... where are the "actual scientific studies" that PROVE the claim for a ... what do you call it ... creator?
and, uh ... if you can prove there's a creator....
Where?
What is his/her/its name?
If it exists it has a location and a name.
Let's hear it, OK?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Phenom ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Faith in a creator still leaves more than enough room to understand and accept science. I guess there are not too many people out there that can relate to both?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Otherwise there would be no scientists in church.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I see no conflict between science and a creator. I see absurdity in insisting only one can be correct.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Phenom ) on March 27, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Mike: Why can both not be correct?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Indeed. Why not?
Diego, you are free to disbelieve myths and fables just as others are free to believe in them. My only point was that science and belief a creator are not mutually exclusive.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( amgabber ) on March 27, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
let's hear it for Clarence Darrow and William Jennings...always nice to welcome folks from the flat earth society...
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Huh?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ad ) on March 27, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Rhonda Storms and her fellow religious zealots are the champion of Religion and Sex. They will seek, find and revel in any issue dealing with this. She is their Joan D'Arc.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 27, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Understood. But as long as there remains the unexplained, it is difficult, for me at least, to criticize those who believe even if I don't share their view.
Having said that, I also think literal interpretation of the bible and young earth stuff is just plain silly. Big Bang, on the other hand, is another matter.
By the way, what happens to the bunniers when they die? Do they go to Disneyland?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( hiskeys ) on March 27, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
There continues to be a fair amount of misunderstanding about the nature of the debate on origins. All three positions (evolution, intelligent design, and biblical creation) are based on both elements of fact and some level of faith, i.e., both observation and speculation.
Evolution looks at the processes of natural selection and mutation, and then proposes that the minor modifications that we can observe today could have accumulated in the past to account for major morphological changes.
Intelligent design observes the cause-and-effect structure of our world, and sees that information, specified complexity and irreducibly complex systems currently have intelligent (purposeful) causes, and proposes that biological origins would follow this same logic.
Creation includes intelligent design principles, but also certain biblical events like the flood of Noah, which might have incorporated plate tectonics, and would account for much of the sedimentary geologic record. The tower of Babel account (following the flood), when people groups became geographically isolated according to languages, would explain visible racial characteristics, due to the added selective pressure of isolation. Instead of the evolutionary single tree of life, creation proposes an original forest or orchard of trees, with the major types being capable of exhibiting various levels of adaptation over time, but maintaining their general identity.
All three, then, use empirical science (observation) to extrapolate into the past (origin science), and should be presented as theories, since they involve unobservable events in the distant past.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LarryFarma ) on March 27, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The top priority should be to get rid of that stupid statement in the state science standards that says that evolution is "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." That simply is not true.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ozzythewarrior ) on March 27, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Evolution and Survival of the fittess can not co-exist
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ozzythewarrior ) on March 27, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Humans inbreeding for thousands of yrs in an evolution enviroment would make all of us pretty retarded by now. At least the bibles account of us humans being perfect would somewhat protect us from inbreeding defects
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 27, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
There is no inbreeding like the inbreeding that would happen if the entire human race sprang from two individuals. There would be no possiblities except brothers and sisters either having sex with each other or with their parents. THAT, my friends, is inbreeding.
Creationism and Intelligent Design observe the world and, when they can't explain what they see, they make the leap into the unknown and unscientific for explanation.
Evolution doesn't have the full story. It does, however, extrapolate from what can be seen and never leaves the domain of scientific logic to leap into the arms of faith.
You never answer this: If you believe in intelligent design, who is the intelligence? If you believe in creationism, who is the creator? In order for these to be complete "scientific theories" you must complete your hypothesis.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( gatorman2k1 ) on March 28, 2008 at midnight ( Suggest removal )
Rhonda Storms is absolutely brilliant. Just when I find myself amazed by the general lack of brainpower on this forum, someone like hiskeyes a few posts back comes along and restores my faith in the human mind.
Anyone who assumes evolution and creation to necessarily be mutually exclusive should probably be beaten. Creationists can't know God's methods during His 6 days, and the God-haters can't account for a beginning without a creative source. Some things in life are knowable and known, but until evolution is proven and without missing links and with a reasonable non-God beginning, it can't stand alone as a theory. Evolution and creationism may indeed be mutually exclusive, and if there's a discrepancy between the two, God's design and Word is right and not JoeDingle123 on a forum full of generally uninformed people talking to other uninformed people.
Truth doesn't always about win friends and influence people...
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 28, 2008 at 6:27 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
And you, of course, know "The Truth" not because of rocks and instruments and hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence, but because "It's in The Book!"
Your belief in God preceeds your inquiry. That makes your conclusion foregone. You knew going in, and you are fitting your theory to your already-belief.
That's fine. You must believe what you will.
Stop, however, calling it "Science" in any way. It isn't. It is faith. Have some stones and stop trying to cover up your faith by calling it science. Stand up, straighten up and just say,"I don't care what your rocks say, I believe God did it in six days about six thousand years ago, and I'm not interested in further inquiry!"
THAT is a fair and accurate representation of
"The Truth!"
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MikeF ) on March 28, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Ah, yes! Those missing links. Those gaps in the fossil record.
Speaking of gaps...
The world's oldest known copy of the complete bible is the Codex Sinaiticus from 300-350 AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Old Testament manuscripts, were written between 250 BC and 68 AD.
If the earth is 6,000 years old and the oldest Old Testament is no older than 2,200 years, how do you account for the 3,800 year gap? Something of a missing link itself, wouldn't you say?
By the way, if dinosaurs and man coexisted, why didn’t Noah take dinosaurs on the Arc?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 28, 2008 at 9:39 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on March 28, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Mike ... keep in mind ...
Faith is not accessible by logical argument. It depends on holding fast to belief even (sometimes ESPECIALLY) in the face of evidence to the contrary. The belief comes first and the evidence, if it is considered at all, is fitted to the belief.
This discussion is tiring and, probably, fruitless. Faith is simply not accessible by logic and that's why science cannot disprove religion.
Be clear: There is no point in trying to argue facts. There is no point in trying to point out inconsistencies. Faith provides a clear and constant answer to all questions and no further inquiry or input is effective.
My only points have been that faith and science are completely different domains of human experience. Neither is superior. Mixing the two is problematic. It's like you asked me how long the two by four was and I answered,"Blue." I maintain that science is the proper subject for the public school and faith is the proper subject for the church and home.
Both science and faith are proper exercises of humanity. One of the arts of the developing human is to distinguish which one is appropriate at what time.</