Slashdot Mirror


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.''"

27 of 871 comments (clear)

  1. of course they did by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    there was a rumor going around florida might lose their fark tag.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  2. Fundies again by dosius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 21st Century... The new Dark Ages, when religion is high and education is low.

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  3. So....... by aztektum · · Score: 5, Funny

    When do we start bombing the religious zealots in this country for oppressing their people?

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:So....... by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, to be honest, I'd really like to suggest a title change for the articles concerned - "12 Florida Schools Pass Anti-Science Resolutions."

      That's really what's happening. The theory of Evolution is one of the most heavily supported things in the scientific world, and passing laws against it speaks exceptionally loudly about the given parties ability to discern fact from fiction, intelligence from hand-waving, and most importantly, critical thinking from anything else. They're not just rejecting evolution, they're rejecting the process of science as a whole.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:So....... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they can't teach evolution, then they shouldn't be able to teach about gravity or anything else. Almost everything in science that is relatively established (beyond hypothesis) is a theory. So why have science classes at all? And then these same religious idiots are the ones who will bash the education system for not staying competitive with the rest of the world. How can you stay competitive when you are preventing your children from receiving a valid, proper, progressive education with such important things as ... you know... math and science?

    3. Re:So....... by C0rinthian · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't believe in Gravity. The Earth just sucks.

  4. Opposed to facts by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oscar Howard Jr., superintendent of Taylor County's School District, and Danny Lundy, vice chairman of the School Board, spoke in accents from that other Florida. ''We're opposed to teaching evolution as a fact,'' Howard said, adding that his School Board and 11 others have passed resolutions against the imposition of evolution in the school curriculum.
    Before the "It's just a theory" folks start up, I'll point out that a theory is a model to explain the facts.
    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Opposed to facts by xstonedogx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...it is still a theory unless and until cold, hard proof can be found.

      No, you're just perpetuating the ignorance.

      A theory can be well-supported by evidence or not. It can be proven false by any example which shows it is incorrect. It cannot be proven true, though, because we could discover something in the future for which the theory cannot account.

      Creationists essentially argue that since science cannot prove evolution it is a belief system. They promote evolution as 'scientific dogma', intentionally ignoring the fact that science adapts with new theories to explain new phenomena (i.e. science admits when it is wrong). They do this (specifically using ignorance of science's use of the word 'theory' - as you note) to argue that since the theory of evolution is taught, all 'equal' theories (which neither creationism nor ID really are) must be taught as well.

  5. La la la la, I can't hear you! by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... seems to be the sum total of evidence against evolution.

    http://xkcd.com/54/ is appropriate right now.

  6. Re:A perfect argument for school vouchers by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't have any kids and my tax dollars go to public schools. If I have to help pay for them, then parents with kids in private school have to help pay for them.

    If you want to send your kids to private school, that's your right. That doesn't mean that you get to take funds away from public schools.

  7. The Religious Mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have studied theology in some depth. I am familiar with apologetics and all the classical defenses put forth to support the integrity of specific, popular, religious beliefs.

    For all the philosophical rambling, none of them, absolutely none of them, escape this simple indisputable fact:

    All religious teachings are provided to us by humans.

    If God Himself appeared next to me and handed me a copy of the Bible, that would be one thing. But instead, a human handed to me. And, in fact, a human wrote every word that is in it. This notion of "divine inspiration" (which is supposed to remove the element of human fallibility from the Bible) was communicated to me by...wait for it....A HUMAN.

    I can agree in principle with the presumption that faith in God is well-founded, and faith in human reason (i.e. the theory of evolution) is not so well-founded. However, to put faith in the teachings (or books) of any religion is to put faith in human reason.

    There is no denial, only rationalization.

    1. Re:The Religious Mind by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Funny

      The problem is, how would you know it was god and not some advanced life form?
      PGP Web of Trust, baby! If God signs it, then those people who certified his key would all have to be liars. What's the chance of that?
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:The Religious Mind by raybob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...science can't escape the fact that ultimately it is merely a *description* of the universe it doesn't tell us the true nature of the universe or even what 'nature' is."

      "All natural laws are merely descriptions of ..."

      You are missing a key concept here. Scientific theories are more than descriptions, they collectively form a 'model' of the observable world. As such, they may be used as predictive tools, which is not true of religious dogma. Given a certain set of conditions, outcome X will occur.

      Religion, on the other hand, is descriptive of past events, and assigns causal relationships where there aren't any. Think of miracles - they can't be predicted, there's no evidence finding for a supernatural cause, and given the same set of initial conditions, the miracle can't be reproduced.

      So evolution, natural selection, species environmental dynamics, etc. as a body of knowledge can be used to predict to a certain extent. Not exactly --what-- will occur, but that change in species characteristics will occur (speciation, see here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) due to selection processes over time that have as their genesis factors such as isolation, mutation, interbreeding, etc.

      Science is an axiomatic, rigorous, and predictive model, whereas religion is interpretation of history to fit a non-rigorous faith-based viewpoint.

  8. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by stewbacca · · Score: 5, Funny

    but I've never actually seen anything evolve.
    Funny, neither has anyone living in Florida.
  9. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "it's only a theory" comment is a pretty classic example of an etymological fallacy; invoking an older or more looser usage of a word in an attempt to undermine a more narrow or professional usage. In this case, they attempt to equate the definition of theory as a "claim" or "guess" with the very narrow and strict definition of the word as it is applied by scientists. It's simply another variant of the older sticker trick that was tried, and every time it comes up, a court sees through the bullshit and lies (it's ironic how deceitful and immoral all these good Christian folks become) and rule that the Creationists/IDers have distinctly religious motives.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. What really sucks is, this isn't really religion. by riseoftheindividual · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, this argument over evolution has religious roots, but I can't help but stare in disbelief at believers who waste their energy over this argument. What difference does it make if every school in the country teaches God created the earth when you look at most religious people and the only way you can tell they have religion is their loud harping on evolution and abortion and hatred of homosexuals, atheists, and people who don't share their faith? There's no compassion or any of the other virtues you occasionally hear touted as being part of religion coming from the people behind these movements. No love of truth. No love of others as they love themselves. Just know it all venom and a desperate need to defend dogmas no matter how silly they sound defending them or what new lows of deception they have to sink to in their defense.

    I have to ask those believers, is this what Jesus would do and be about? I'm working my ass off to make sure my kids can go to the finest private non-religious schools available. They can raise their kids in 3rd world ignorance, but I can make sure my kids aren't.

    --
    Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
  11. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by Lurker2288 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, your arguing against inference. Have you ever seen an electron? Did you ever see your great-great-great-great-grandparents? Did you ever meet anybody that spoke Proto-Indo-European? No, but you can infer these things from the evidence.

    As to evolution, of course you can observe it. We have nylon-digesting bacteria now when nylon didn't even exist before the 1930s. I was just reading about pupfish in Death Valley who have gone through a radical process of speciation since the valley dried up after 20,000 years ago.

    If you wish to dip into some sort of solipsism or epistemological nihilism, be my guest, but what you're really doing is denying that any knowledge can be gathered that is reliable. You might as well deny that yesterday ever happened, and that the universe began at midnight, and everything is just fake memories. Just remember, if you want to deny or question evolution "because I've never seen it", then you have to be fair and basically call into question *all* knowledge, because everything is susceptible to such an argument.

    If you actually want to learn something about evolution, then I recommend going to http://talkorigins.org/ where there are dozens of articles dealing with all manner of evolutionary problems and explanations, with full citations so you can go to a library and check for yourself.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  13. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by Suicyco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This boils down to people arguing about things that they didn't observe, and can't really know. Creationism (at least the Christian kind) requires faith that something written thousands of years ago by people who also didn't witness the events is true. "Evolutionism" requires faith in the work of hundreds of scientists interpreting the present and making educated guesses about the past. No one saw man created out of dirt and breathed to life by God, but by the same token, no one saw a single-celled organism spring to life in the primordial soup and continue re-writing itself until it became a human.


    Of course we have seen it. Its all around us. Its in the fossil record. By your logic, nobody has actually seen galaxies evolve because they are looking into the past via the fossil record of the universe - radiation (light, xrays, etc.)

    Evolution can be easily traced back to the earliest creatures capable of leaving imprints of themselves behind. The entire process of developing lungs, limbs, spines, etc. etc. is all right there. Each step of the way. It is not a mystery. Just because it doesn't happen in a timespan and a place you personally can witness doesn't make it not so. The sun didn't form before your eyes did it? Did the mountains spring up so you could witness? Is geology a supposition? An educated guess?

    You can demonstrate evolution in the lab with bacteria. You can demonstrate complex hydrocarbons doing all sorts of magical stuff in the lab (how life came to be in the first place.)

    Tracing the biology of animals of this planet is a well known, well documented science. It is FACT, because the facts are right there in front of the entire worlds eyes, should they choose to look. Fish moving onto land, developing lungs, etc.

    We have broken down the DNA code very well at this point, and can trace our origins that way as well. We can see where we differ and what we share with trees, worms, bacteria, dogs and elephants. Natural selection (the mechanism behind evolution) is everywhere as well. Look at dog and cat breeds. Cattle. Plants. Insects. You name it, you can change the creature itself by breeding.

    Evolution is science. It is what the facts tell us. This is not a philosophical debate. There are no two sides. It is not a guess. It is about stupidity and blind faith. You can't reject evolution any more than you can reject combustion, or gravity. If people DO reject it, they are simply being ignorant and stupid. Plain and simple.

    Basing "science" on something written thousands of years ago by people who were so far from us in their knowledge of the world is ridiculous. It is absurd. Why not simply observe the world? Observe what is right in front of our faces, and learn from it.
  14. Dogmatic is the right word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. Read Some Voltaire by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    More of us should read Voltaire's writings. He wrote a great deal about fanaticism and religion (he was not an atheist). Some quotes:

    One of my favorites:

    Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities.

    From Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary:

    Fanaticism is to superstition what delirium is to fever, and what fury is to anger. The man who has ecstasies and visions, who takes dream for realities, and his imaginings for prophecies, is an enthusiast. The man who backs his madness with murder is a fanatic.

    Believing that the Earth is 10000 years old in the face of hard scientific evidence is like taking dreams for reality.

    Once fanaticism has cankered a brain, the disease is almost incurable...There is no other remedy for this epidemic illness than the spirit of free thought, which, spreading little by little, finally softens men's customs, and prevents the renewal of the disease. For as soon as this evil makes any progress we must flee and wait for the air to become pure again. Laws and religion do not suffice against the pest of the soul.

    Methinks in these days of growing fanaticism, both religious and ideological, we would do well to learn from what Voltaire wrote.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  16. Re:Did a human say it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Older humans work very hard on teaching very young humans about religion, to make sure they believe in it when they grow older and continue the cycle.

    I think that's dead wrong.

    It's actually pretty tough for our child sometimes, who we brought up to be caring and considerate of the feelings of others without the fear of a trip to hell if she isn't, when her friends invite her to go to Church with them. She goes along sometimes but afterwards, if there's a study group, she has to excuse herself because she doesn't know what to say or do. What to think even. She tells us that she pretends to pray so they other kids don't think she's a freak, but she really has no clue who she's meant to be praying to.

    At least she won't go to hell for doing so, because there is no such thing of course.

  17. Re:What really sucks is, this isn't really religio by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well said. You have my applause.

    Really, this sort of behavior boils down to tribalism. People have a need to identify themselves as part of a group and what better way to do that then to contrast yourselves with those who are outside of your group. This is why some people glom onto fanatacisim for professional sports teams or fall victim to fashion trends. It's all about establishing your group identity. The Japanese have a notably complex system of in-groups and out-groups and expected behaviors when interacting with people in and out of your many groups.

    The foaming at the mouth evangelicals love to portray themselves as under perilous attack by secular heathens despite the fact that North America has an overwhelmingly Christian culture and it isn't going away anytime soon. This is all part of the rhetoric established from the time that Christians really were a minority group who had to withstand the oppression of other dominant groups. Just once, I whish these fools could put themselves in the shoes of a Hindu or Buddhist immigrant to realize what it truly feels like to be a little fish in a bowl of sharks.

    Of course this is one of the many problems with modern Christianity: it is permeated with an air of anti-intellectualism. You shouldn't try to question the "truth" as given to you by people serving as intermediaries for God (or direct from the KJV Bible for the literalists). To do so would be to admit that you don't have enough faith and without faith you're going to hell so just shut up and believe everything we tell you to believe in. We have things like idiot Protestants claiming that Roman Catholics aren't real Christians. (WTF?) People like Pat Robertson are lionized by millions and yet he openly expresses hatred for non-Christians. Somehow these people can claim to be followers of Jesus and yet they conveniently fail to realize the core meaning his teachings.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  18. Literalism by EnsilZah · · Score: 5, Funny

    You when will you literalists ever learn?
    God only used an integer because support for floating point operations was severely limited in the CPUs of the time.

  19. The resolution is actually PRO evolution by lelitsch · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you actually read the http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us/shared.content/board.meetings/minutes/11-20-07.pdf>meeting minutesyou would see that they are actually EXPANDING on the theory of evolution into the real of cosmology and quantum physics.

    "[we] are requesting that the State Board of Education direct the Florida Department of
    Education to revise/edit the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is
    presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed."

    I have a graduate degree in physics, but I wasn't aware that the universe was formed by evolution. Although I have to admit that the thought of mating galaxies has a certain appeal.

    ---------------------
    People who don't understand sarcasm are bound to be an irresistible target for it.

  20. Don't Hire Any Florida Graduates by reallocate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Employers who expect their employees to be conversant with modern science and the scientific method should send letters to these school districts decalring they won't hire anyone who is a product of their schools.

    Yes, that's unfair to some students, but these willful Luddites need to be taught a lesson.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  21. Re:The funny thing is by roadkill-maker · · Score: 5, Informative
    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