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."
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?
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
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.
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
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.