12 Florida Schools Pass Anti-Evolution Resolutions

Several sources are reporting that twelve school districts in Florida have passed resolutions against the teaching of evolution. Out of all the arguments, however, one administrator seems to have gotten it right: "Then, the final speaker, Lisa Dizengoff, director of science curriculum at Pembroke Pines Charter School's east campus, angrily reminded the crowd that after all the carping over evolution, no one had gotten around to addressing the state's lackadaisical, last-century approach to science education. 'All I heard was this argument about evolution,' she said, disgusted that so many other problems had been preempted by a single controversy. 'The kids lost out again.''"

Comments

Re:Opposed to facts

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Indeed. Evolution is a fact. Punctuated Equilibrium (for example) is a theory.

Re:So it continues..

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean "evolution is no fact"?

Evolution is both fact AND theory. Otherwise, I agree with your post :)

Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact....

[Lurker2288]

Actually, you have seen evolution in action. You've seen evidence of it every time you hear a news story about bacteria developing resistance to new antibiotics, every time you hear about somebody who has cancer. You can go to a museum and see how living things have changed over time, or notice the fact that whales have arm bone structure that's not all that different from land-dwelling mammals.

In short, there is no question--none whatsoever--that evolution takes place. The modern synthesis of evolutionary theory says that it happens because mutations provide a source of variation which natural forces can select for or against. This is observable as well: if you consider the gene for sickle cell anemia (which provides protection against malaria), it tends to be much more common in regions of the world that are rife with malaria, because those are the places where that gene can convey some benefit. This is pretty much as close as you get to bulletproof science. Now, admittedly, there are some areas of the theory which aren't as certain as others, but on the whole, you're talking about a very damn solid theory that's supported by interlocking scientific evidence from dozens of disciplines. Some of the best minds in science have been poking and prodding at this theory for over 150 years and it's still going strong--hell, Darwin's theory predicted some things that we've only recently found with molecular biology. How much better does a theory get?

Personally, I'd be happy to let the religious folks gather round their altars and sing Hosannahs to their invisbile sky daddy, but unfortunately, that's not enough for them. They need to inflict their beliefs, whether on abortion, or stem cell research, or contraception use, or whatever, on all of us. Why should I trust somebody who closes their eyes to basic scientific fact to make decisions rooted in science that might affect me?

The world will be a better place when we grow up enough, as a species, to put away childish things like religion.

Re:This is not necessarily a bad thing.

[MightyMartian]

"Many biologists"? I'd say the overwhelming majority do. Even ID proponent Michael Behe doesn't deny evolution and common descent, he just wants to find some way to emperically insert God into the equation.

Pretty much every biologist I've ever read or talked to agrees with this maxim:

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky

Re:Opposed to facts

[rossifer]

I don't know who moderated the parent a troll, but you need to inform yourself. Evolution is an observed fact. Natural selection is a scientific theory that provides a comprehensive explanation for the observed facts of evolution.

What most people are doing when they say "Evolution is just a theory" is confusing hypothesis with theory. Or, they are confusing the word theory in common parlance (conjecture) with scientific theory.

A scientific hypothesis is defined as: "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

A scientific theory, on the other hand is defined as: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Re:The Religious Mind

[arthurpaliden]

For what it is worth The King James Bible was a "Government" publication.

Re:Irony...

[bckrispi]

Evolution has been accepted by the Catholic church for decades. It's the Evangelical Protestants who are raising a stink.

Re:So it continues..

[MightyMartian]

What do you mean by "no definitive proof". We share almost entirely the same genome. Hell, we even share many of the same endogenous retroviral insertions as our closest relatives; the great apes, at the same bloody loci in the genome. If you have some alternate explanation besides common descent, then I'd love to hear it.

Dogmatic is the right word

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood why Christianity is so dogmatic about it.

Perhaps I can help clear that up.

The Catholic church existed before the Bible existed. The Catholic church assembled the Bible to use as a cannon of study and teaching. They did not say "this single book was given to us by God, and is therefore correct, and therefore we must try to build our church and beliefs around its contents." The structure of authority went the other way...the leaders of the church (the Pope and his underlings) had received all of God's teachings directly, through oral tradition and through the direct (miraculous) transmission of the Holy Spirit. They were the ultimate authority on what was True, and the Bible was just one collection of sacred writings which they were authorizing for spiritual use.

So the authoritive structure of truth went from God, to Jesus, to the Apostles, to the Church, THEN to the Bible.

Inasmuch as the Bible might be lacking in any detail, or stating anything in a confusing way, the Church was there to clarify things for you.

The doctrine of the Trinity, then, does not need to be Biblical in order for it to be a proper Catholic belief. It merely needs to be endorsed by the Church.

Martin Luther stood that on its head when he founded his own version of the church (the Protestants) and based it on his own interpretation of the Bible and of the teachings of the church. Over time, other people followed his example, creating the numerous sects of Christianity that we see today. These sects do not consider themselves Catholics, and as such are "cut off" from the historical roots of their teachings. They have cooked up this notion that their teachings are entirely founded in the Bible, when in fact many of them are just leftovers from Catholicism, or new additions made by their various sect-founders along the way.

So that's why they get so dogmatic about it. They are taught that:

1) The Bible is the foundation of our beliefs.
2) The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is one of our beliefs.

And they therefore infer that the doctrine of the Trinity must be Biblical. Some of the more studious ones have found a few vague and poetic verses in various parts of the Bible and synthesized them (with a little rationalizing glue) to produce what they claim is the scriptural foundation of that belief. However, anyone who reads them without already knowing about the doctrine of the Trinity will very likely not conclude that the Bible teaches that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one.

So there you have it.

Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact....

[ultracool]

From Nature this week:

SPREAD THE WORD

Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.

Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world.

For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides. Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy). But die-hard creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution -- as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys.

As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.

Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact....

[lgw]

You're right, I should have more clearly stated that I've never seen a living organism evolve.

And why is that funny? Have you? Living organisms don't evolve. Populations do. Evolution is "a change in the statistical distribution of alleles in a population over time". This happens continuously, and is observed about as often as gravity.

I sometimes wonder if any schoolsare teaching evolution in the first place.

Re:The funny thing is

[roadkill-maker]

I'll bite

and to deny that Athiesm is not a form of religion is false. Either you don't know the definition of atheism or you don't know the definition of religion.

from http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67 Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Atheism from http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67 Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Even Evolution takes faith. Again, you obviously don't know the definition of science and faith. from http://www.answers.com/faith&r=67 Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

From Wikipedia on scientific method: It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning

I can't make it any clearer, sorry

religiously, adverb, to do regularly

[gr8scot]

Some people are religious Christians, some people are religious drunks,

The adverb "religiously" as you used it derives only loosely from one aspect of religion, the practice of religious rituals. You are asserting an equality by means of the false implication that the adverb "religiously" [as in regular performance of an action or adherence to a behavior pattern] is more similar -- in fact, identical -- to that subset of habits that are religious rituals. The difference is in the reason for habits, and is not trivial. Scientists practice the habit of quantifying their results, for example, for a good reason. Likewise, on the generous assumption that you habitually brush your teeth, you do so for a good reason, which does not derive from worship of teeth, a high priest with a degree in dental medicine, or a dental deity. One common usage of the sound denoted by that combination of letters "religiously" is as you characterize it, but the similarity in sound does not trump the difference of meaning. The existence of the colloquialism "religiously" to refer to all habits is not sufficient to bridge the gap in meaning between religions, and all habits of all kinds. Outside of religion, many things are done regularly, which you sloppily equate with ritually, in order to conclude the falsehood "religiously," in order to then equate the distinct, unequivalent usage of that adverb with the noun "religion."

..and, if you don't believe that science can be a religion, you have not tried to discuss facts with someone who has a pet theory.

I am doing so right now, because science is not a religion, and your motive in telling that lie can only be malicious.

Atheism may be a religion for some people: it depends on whether they are atheists because they don't see the need for anything else or because they are against religion.

That is false. Opposition to the intrusion of religion on the unwilling and uninterested is a direct logical consequence of the fact that I "don't see the need for" religion myself and am unwilling to be made to participate in it, nor to help anybody to use the State to compel anybody else to do so. That I habitually contradict your arguments does not imply what you claim, "religiosity."

Many people, perhaps most, are religious about the core things in their life because they accept them on faith and believe them dogmatically, whatever their philosophical underpinnings.

That is what psychologists call projecting. You speak only for yourself when you speak of subjective experiences and motives, despite any wish to speak for the collective.

Science does require faith for the same reason that accepting the Bible as describing spiritual events requires faith: people do not, for the most part, directly experience the things they read about or are told.

Science is a process, not a collection of facts. Your assertion of equivalence of religious dogmas to the memorization of any or even all scientifically proven facts is proven false, and the dogma that science is dogma, with it.