Slashdot Mirror
New Science Standards Approved in Florida
anonymous_echidna writes "Florida has voted to accept the new K-12 science curriculum standards amidst a storm of controversy around the teaching of evolution, which had up until now been the scientific concept that dare not speak its name. There was a compromise made at the last minute, which was to call evolution a 'scientific theory', rather than a fact. While some lament that the change displays the woeful ignorance of science and scientific terminology, the good news is that the new curriculum emphasizes teaching the meaning of scientific terms and the scientific method in earlier grades."
Still, I think it would be an improvement of orders of magnitude if science classes in general focused more on:
"how did we learn this?" (i.e., the scientific method, how observations have to be done to eliminate bias, the formulation of competing theories, how experiments are designed, how hypotheses were ruled out, etc.)
as opposed to:
"here is he official list of truth that you have to memorize and then do cute IQ-test-like problems with".
The latter gives the wrong impression of what science is and why it matters.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
There have been too many occasions where the news media has persisted in "dumbing down" the terminology that they use. I even remember watching a "Faith and Values" show on CNN last year where John Edwards (the candidate, not the psychic) was asked his thoughts on Evolution which, in the words of Soledad O'brien, was the belief that man evolved from apes.
We need the news media to take the lead in helping people understand what a theory is vs. a hypothesis. How fact and theory are not opposites. The fact that a "law" is not the opposite of a theory. Too many people are getting away with murder in these debates because the termnology isn't clearly understood and the news media doesn't care to straighten it out.
Regards, Ian
That's fair, because evolution IS a scientific theory. So is Gravity. Hopefully they'll also teach the kids what it means to be a theory, and that "theory" doesn't mean "wild-ass-guess".
Username taken, please choose another one.
Isn't that like an Obama supporter lamenting that Obama was called a Presidential Candidate by the press?
but days of God, which are explained to be any length of time in two different places in the Bible.
In several places in the Bible it explains how the passage of time is not a factor to God as it is to us (a day is like a millenia, a millenia like a day), but it explicitly says in Genesis, after each day of creation, "And there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day." If you hand-wave away that phrase, then what else do you hand-wave away?
Control the meaning of words, you control how they're percieved. For instance, most if not all the old Soviet republics considered themselves 'democratic' in that elections were held on a regular basis. Of course, there was only one slate of candidates to elect, so calling them 'democracies' was a bit of a misnomer. Likewise, their penchant for putting "People's' in front of just about everything, like 'People's Democratic Republic of'. Double whammy there...
Now, if the definition of 'approved' now means 'guaranteed not to piss off any J Random NeoCon Fundie', and 'theory' now means 'something that cannot be proved but must be taken on faith', we're in serious trouble here...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
This is actually a good thing. A good theory stands up to scrutiny. There is not such thing as "ridiculous" challenge. Any challenge which does not deny rules of logic or observed facts has merit. If students are instilled with an extra degree of scepticism, I'd say, "good for them." Dogmatic teaching of scince as facts creates nothing but fudder for pop-culture -- it does not produce thinking minds.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The highest honor SCIENCE can bestow any idea is that of the "Theory". Science cannot claim anything to be a fact because in science, nothing is beyond disproval.
If science starts stating things are fact, and beyond disproval then the idea in question becomes dogma. Dogma is the realm of religion. Science may be your religion, but you do science a great disservice by making it so, at the expense of the scientific schema and method.
I know that the creationist/ID crowd LOVES to rub it in that evolution "is only a theory", but you've got to resist the temptation of fighting back by out-dogma-ing the dogmatists.
Evolution IS only a theory, it's among the most widely studied and tested theories of science. It's the single unifying theory of biology. Everyone say it with me: Evolution IS just a theory. The 800lb Gorrilla, bad-mother-fucker, stomp your colon theory. The king of theories.
In science, that's as good as it gets. And as science-minded people, we should know that.
THL phish sticks
The Roman Catholic church has recognized evolution essentially as fact and completely compatible with the bible. So I don't really understand what the problem is with Protestants in this country.
The only reason I see for this idiotic push to marginalize evolution and push creationism as a valid theory is because Christian conservatives see their influence on American culture slipping. This is a desperate attempt to make their religion relevant. I don't understand how this is permitted.
Evolution is a science. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science and have no place in the science class. Those concepts don't conform to the standards established by science. There is a place for creationism, and that's the theology class.
If parents want to compromise their children's education they should do so in private schools or at home instead of trying to force this stupidity on everyone.
It's not really a question of religion, if you think about it--it's more a question of politics.
It just happens that the politics involved are largely being used within the framework of religion in order to maintain a certain population within a given power structure, and to resist attempts to overturn said power structure from the outside.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Teaching evolution - does it really matter?
Evolution is the least popular theory ever proposed. It has been under continuous attack ever since it was proposed. During this time, the creationists have tried every trick they can think of to get it out of the schools. They have blamed just about every evil of society on it, and they have brainwashed millions into believing that it's incompatible with their religion. They've tried to make it illegal, and they have even tried (unsuccessfully) to disprove it. And evolution has survived all of these attacks because it is true. You can always argue that the physical evidence doesn't accurately represent reality, and of course the creationists have tried that, but it's no use when they're arguing with proper scientists.
Given this, I don't think we need to worry about evolution at all. Sure, creationists would like it to be thrown away entirely, but as long as we have scientists, that simply will not happen. You just can't do useful research in any physical science if you think the Bible has greater authority than a ton of physical evidence. There are worse problems in public schools than a bunch of nutcases wanting their crazy beliefs taught as if they were science.
There is no evidence that will convince a creationist that he is wrong. If Jesus Christ personally appeared in front of John Q. Creationist and said "Hi, John. My name's Jesus, the Earth is billions of years old and evolution is basically true," then John Q. would probably crucify him for blasphemy. That's what the fundamentalists did, the last time Jesus told them they were wrong. "Everyone" knows that God couldn't have created the Universe using evolution: he's omnipotent, sure, but he's not that omnipotent. In summary, there is no point in trying to argue with these people, their beliefs are nuts even in comparison to other Christians, so let's just ignore them..
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
http://www.mhall119.com
The "Theory of Evolution" is not "Evolution."
"Evolution" is a proven fact. Organisms evolve over time. It has been documented, proved, case closed. Again: it is a fact that organisms evolve. Score one for science and zoology.
Now, the more complex question, why do certain evolutionary steps take place? That is subject to theory and speculation, research, anthropology, and study. Did human being evolve from "lesser" primates? Almost certainly, barring some unforeseen UFO landing (8 million years to earth -- Quatermas and the pit) or divine intervention, the fossil record is pretty conclusive.
What is most interesting is the path from lesser primate to our current form, we still do not know everything. For instance, it seems that perhaps the Neanderthals re-joined the genetic pool rather than simply die off.
The problem is that religious fools require absolute certainty in everything but religion. The evolution of human beings is far more proven then genesis, but they "believe" genesis as "gospel." So, evolution and the path between single cell life and 21st century human beings has to be 100% documented with no missing steps or ambiguous lineage or it is just a wild theory and therefor no more valid than what they already believe.
They are, by definition, unreasonable. Unfortunately, "unreason" is the common sense of the day because we "elite" thinkers don't represent "real" America.
We see the theory of gravity in operation, although it too is referred to as a theory. We do not see the tectonic plates move continents across the ocean, although we know it happened. Just because you cannot actually witness firsthand the process of evolution creating new species, it does not give the theory of evolution any less credibility that any other scientific idea. We can observe that evolution has occurred, and quantify the rate at which it occurs. We have models of evolution and have tested those models against the available scientific evidence (hint: it's caused by genetic mutation of DNA at a measurable rate, and the fossil evidence matches our predictions).
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Please refrain from calling every biological scientist in the world a liar. Whether you like it or not, evolution is scientifically speaking a theory.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I have to shout BS.
The equivalency of validity between scientific theory (based on evidence, tested by observation, and refined to match the observe phenomenon) and belief (backed up by nothing more than "I said so") has gone too far in this world. I make the stand, not out of arrogance, but out of outrage. Belief != Search for Truth. Belief != Truth. Belief != Philosophical Introspection. Belief != Model of the Universe.
Unless you have EVIDENCE to offer for your claims, I say shove them. Even a well reasoned argument will suffice. But if your theory requires acoutremant like an omniscient daddy sitting in the sky tossing death rays down at us to make it work with no particular need for him given the observed phenomenon, then it is quite frankly invalid. Now, you can preach to those mistaken fools who are silly enough to swallow your garbage, but quit equating what you do to science and philosophy.
My Babylon
String theory is incomplete.
The biggest problem with this whole "it's just a theory" argument is that the word "theory" is ambiguous. It's just like "free speech" vs. "free beer".
In science "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. A theory is a logical explanation or a testable model for a given natural phenomenon.
In common language, however, theory refers to conjecture or opinion. Thus the confusion.
String theory is the former, but it is incomplete. It has yet to be adopted by the scientific community as a proven theory because there are no accepted methods of testing it. In other words, it is a work in progress. To nitpick about calling string theory a "theory" is like nitpicking about a computer program that isn't finished being coded yet being called a "computer program". No matter which side of the fence you decide to sit on you'll be right. It's not technically a program yet because it's incomplete. But to say that it's not a program raises the question of what to call it.
No one has witnessed Macro-Evolution (changes from one species to another). There is no difference between the two, they are not separate theories or separate observations. It's like saying we can observe that a single photon travels at speed c, but we haven't observed 10 million photons traveling at c, so we don't have to believe it can happen.
Until you prove that the mechanism for "micro-evolution" is different than the mechanism for "macro-evolution", then belief one is belief in both.
http://www.mhall119.com
It's the best scientific explanation we have right now for the facts that are evident. However, the theory of evolution has itself evolved over the last hundred years. It's not a static thing, and it should continue to be refined as more evidence presents itself. Evolution will never be a scientific fact, at least until we can build time machines that will let us go back to study man in his There are very few facts in science. That gravity pulls objects toward the center of the earth at 32ft/s^2 is a fact. The theory of gravity explains why that happens.
So true. This is a prime example of the difference between how science works and how religion works. Simply put, science = (observation + disprovable theories). If your theory conforms to the observations under certain conditions, you can apply that theory again as long as the conditions are met.
The driving force behind religion is - in my opinion - social pressure. If your parents are christian, you'll be a christian too. Not because it is testable that it is the only true religion, but a) because you are indoctrinated from day one, and b) because your environment won't allow you to think differently. You won't "fit in" anymore. Just think what happens when two people with different religions want to mary. In extremis, even today, young people are killed by their own family because they want to mary somebody with a different belief. Now that's an extreme case, but it clearly shows how strong social pressure can be. The family rather kills it's own than to have to go through the shame. The individual feels the pressure of the family, and the family feels the pressure of the community.
That's why they want to propagate ID by law instead of scientific proof. It's totally in line with how religion works.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
or this paper that shows "allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations" [Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308-1311.]
or a similar paper using other fruit flys [Kirkpatrick, M. and V. Ravigné (2002) "Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments" The American Naturalist 159:S22-S35 DOI]
or any of the genetic evidence for speciation?
Erm, except there are fish that have both gills and lungs. Lungs are a gas permeable extension of the gut that developed independantly of gills. In some cases, the animals found the shallows to be preferable and those with superior gas transfer developed lungs. In those animals that didn't, the organ developed into the gas bladder, allowing them to absorb gas into and excrete gas from the blood stream to control density.
Pick a harder one, like why the human retina is such a lousy design and that of the octopus is so much better.
Actually no I hadn't. You are the first person to present me with actual examples of reproductively isolated speciation. I retract my previous statements about having no observed examples of one species evolving into another.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Religion is actually just politics with an invisible leader. The power seekers in religion want to be second in command.
It works out great. By being second in command you get all the power and its trappings, great food, great sex, great place to live and the best part is you can pass the buck to the guy in charge if things seem to be going awry. It's actually a much better thought out scam than politics.
I'd be all for it if it wasn't for this demand of universal ignorance they call faith.