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."

40 of 891 comments (clear)

  1. Jesus Fucking Christ by Protonk · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm moving to another country where crazy isn't an approved religion.

    1. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For a biting critique of Florida's new standards, and a defense of craziness, see "Our Reputation for Flakiness is at Stake" by Carl Hiaasen [ http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/carl_hiaasen/story/421075.html].

    2. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by Protonk · · Score: 4, Funny

      I love Carl Hiassen. But I think that between the two of us we can't spell his name right. :)

    3. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    4. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by o'reor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Man, thanks for bringing it up, I had forgotten Carl's name and I was fumbling around in the Colbert Reports archive, but there it is : Carl Hiaasen's interview on the Colbert Report, a true moment of fun.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    5. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Finally, individual teachers have a lot of leeway in what they teach; science teachers will teach evolution with the certainty that they feel it's due, no matter what guidelines have been set down. Not if they want to keep their jobs they won't. With school boards and school administrators unsympathetic to the teaching of evolution, while the teaching of evolution is not banned, parent complaints will give them a reason to find some other convenient excuse to fire the teacher. For example, a Texas science director was canned because of her pro-evolution stance. The official reason: insubordination because she used her work email to forward a federal court judgment on evolution to friends and some online communites. Every teacher has done something similar and having a pro-evolution viewpoint will give the school administrators an excuse to find anything incriminating.
    6. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by trongey · · Score: 5, Funny

      RE: Title of parent post.
      I don't think he could do that, even with miraculous powers. I know, the whole one-in-three business makes it kind of confusing, but I still just don't think it could be done.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    7. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Informative

      If they're going to teach the theory of evolution, they should they should at least teach that it's more than a theory!

      Evolution *is* a theory. Perhaps they should also teach what "theory" means.

    8. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by mhall119 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Evolution *is* a theory. Perhaps they should also teach what "theory" means. There is a theory of Evolution just like there is a theory of Gravity, each explaining the factual phenomena for which they are named.
      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    9. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Interesting
      but without being able to see the process in nature, it is difficult to justify calling it scientific fact.


      Yeah, because without all those fossils showing us the evolution of a horse or human, there would be no way to show the evolutionary process in action. And let's not forget the different shapes of the beaks of the birds that Darwin studied. Those certainly don't show any kind of evolutionary action.

      Why do people keep insisting that Evolution, the act itself, isn't a fact? If there were no fact, then there wouldn't be a theory. The only reason theories come about is because of a fact.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    10. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only reason theories come about is because of a fact. You mean like string theory?

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    11. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by bunratty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    12. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by mhall119 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, there is no theory of gravity yet. Actually there are many theories of gravity. To the best of my knowledge, there is the relativistic theory, a classical quantum mechanical theory, many variations of string theory, and several others like loop quantum gravity. The problem is that there isn't any one theory that can explain the all of the same phenomena.

      These all differ from hypotheses because they are more than just a prediction of the outcome of a test, but an explanation for why we should expect that outcome.
      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    13. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by garett_spencley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by mhall119 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone can witness Micro-Evolution (changes within one species).

      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
    15. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by Matt+Edd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You mean no one saw this or this or this or this or this


      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?

    16. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by Zerth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by mhall119 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cool, but you still haven't proven how a fish can grow lungs without compromising it's current breathing system. I'm not sure what I'm missing. I gave you an example of a fish that can breath air, as well as using gills to extract free oxygen from water. I've proven to you that such an animal is possible, what more do you need?
      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    18. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ by kindbud · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no fact behind the Theory of Evolution in relation to the creation of different species.

      You are mistaken.

      It has been proven that genetic mutations exist, and that they cause illness and deformations, but not that they have the ability to create limbs, wings, lungs, etc. in perfect working order.

      You are mistaken.


      One thing that I am constantly amazed about is that people implant their own logic into Evolution; DNA does not have an agenda. It does not wake up one day and say "over the next 100 generations, I'm going to grow wings and fly!".


      No one says that, except the people who are mistaken about what evolution is, what the theory proposes, and how it is tested. People like the ones you got your mistaken information from.

      Charles Darwin wrote....

      Something, I am sure. But Charles Darwin is not the last word in evolution or natural selection, anymore than Newton is the last word on gravity. Can you at least update your criticisms to refer to science done in the 20th and 21st centuries? A lot of ground has been covered since Darwin.

      It is a HUGE leap from this to saying that "We all came from fish".

      No one says that. But fish and humans have a common ancestor, which was not a fish nor was it a human.

      It is not correct to look at fossils and assume that one came from another because they look similar.

      Of course. And no one does that.

      You have some very fuzzy and shadowy ideas about what scientists do, and how they come to the conclusions they do. I suggest you do some reading of works by scientists who do evolution, not any more reading of works by preachers debunking it with folklore and thought experiments.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
  2. The news media is a major part of the problem by Steeltalon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:The news media is a major part of the problem by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Funny

      You would never say that unless you wanted to get the "I didn't come from no monkey!" camp riled up, or you were an uneducated buffoon.

      Or you were tossing a softball.

      "Why, yes, O'Brien, according to our best evidence we did descend from apes - mor precisely, we and modern apes descended from a common, ape-like ancestor. And I'm proud of how far our species has developed, how far up from the muck we've come, how far towards grace we've climbed; and I hope that our umptity-great grandchildren will be as far above us as we are above the Australopithecines. My opponent the Biblical literalist, on the other hand, seems to hold that we're all the fallen result of incestuous inbreeding from a single original pair of idiots dumb enough to be fooled by a talking snake. I've got to say I find the scientific account not only more rational, but orders of magnitude more inspiring."

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  3. Florida... aye by godawful · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=6PMhLupcYY4

    I saw this guy arguing why evolution shouldn't be taught and i was literally left speechless

    --
    Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
  4. That's fair by anotherone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:That's fair by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Things falling to the ground is a fact; one explanation for it is Newton's theory of gravitation, also called gravity.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:That's fair by KublaiKhan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have a hobby where I argue with various fundamentalists, creationists, and the like in order to understand their particular points of view--using them as an evolutionary pressure for my arguments, as it were, to see which ones have an effect.

      I've noticed in my various arguments that the chief difficulty is getting them to understand the terminology behind the concepts--they simply do not have the vocabulary necessary to vocalize and understand the concepts in question.

      One of those words that is most egregiously misused is "theory"--the "common" form of the word is almost universally understood, but the "scientific" meaning of the word, even when carefully explained, becomes conflated with the common form.

      (Other difficulties I've noticed are: that those who do not accept evolutionary theory are convinced that evolution is directed towards some 'goal'; that all mutations are necessarily harmful; an ignorance of introns and other means by which genetic material can be added to a genome--one of the current arguments that crops up is the one about how you can't get more information into a genome by evolutionary means, which is, of course, utter bosh; a misunderstanding of the scientific method; the false notion that science attempts to be the Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything rather than a best-fit approximation; and the notion that scientists are trying actively to discourage religion)

      Other than teaching the proper meaning of the word 'theory'--which doesn't work very well, frankly; the meaning that they knew first tends to stick no matter how often you teach them the proper one due to recency bias--I'd perhaps recommend a slight change in terminology when speaking of hypotheses that have withstood rigorous testing. Such a change would, of course, have to be accepted by the scientific community as a whole, so it may not be practical--but it's perhaps worth giving some thought to.

      I'd almost recommend 'theorem' rather than 'theory', to leech off of the mathematician's meaning, but while that word is appealing for reasons of similarity and having the proper tone, it may not be ideal due to conflation with mathematical proofs.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    3. Re:That's fair by yali · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you don't believe in gravity being a fact, please jump off a 42 story building.

      A fact is what you have observed. A theory is an explanation of why it is so.

      In the strictest sense, the fact is that you have always (previously) observed that objects fall to the ground. But in order to link that fact to your prediction that he will fall to the ground after jumping off a building, you have to have a theory of gravity that predicts how a novel event (i.e., the grandparent poster jumping off a 42 story building) will unfold in the future.

      Put more succintly: "Objects thrown off a building have always fallen" is a statement of fact. "Objects thrown off a building will always fall" is a hypothesis derived from a theory.

    4. Re:That's fair by pdxdada · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thank you for that. Both sides of this debate drive me crazy as they're both hanging on to their beliefs with religious fervor. Natural selection IS a theory, and most likely there is still a mechanism for change we don't know about. Likewise we still only see macro exolution in the fosil record and haven't observed it in living animals. The fact that science doen't have all the answers doesn't bother me one bit. It's a process. I don't see the need to get defensive about it. Either the scientific method stands on it's own merrits or it's time to look for something else.

      It reminds me of a line from Steven Colbert talking about the "Half Hour News Hour." Something to the effect of "you really need to be on one side or the other because it's hard to be passionately moderate."

      --
      Don't mess with the bunny, outsideworld.org
  5. Someone call editorial... by EricTheGreen · · Score: 4, Funny
    From TFA, boldface added:

    During more than two hours of testimony, scientists and religious representatives argued over whether teaching that humans evolved from a single-celled species over hundreds of millions of years should be taken as gospel.


    Not sure that's the word said scientists would use in this context themselves...
  6. woo hoo! by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 5, Funny

    The more dumbasses in the world, the smarter I seem! woo hoo!

    Fear me, for I have studied the dark science of natural selection!

    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    1. Re:woo hoo! by RingDev · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's that exact logic that got me a girl friend with small hands.

      My junk looks HUGE!

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:woo hoo! by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just make sure you get her back to day care before her mommy comes to pick her up.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  7. Lamenting that evolution is called a theory? by ProteusQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't that like an Obama supporter lamenting that Obama was called a Presidential Candidate by the press?

  8. Why Should We Be Surprised? by saudadelinux · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's face it, folks no other state has its own category on Fark.com; the utter lunacy and stupidity down there has been neatly quantified.

    --
    I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
  9. Re:I accept evolution and I know God is real. by everphilski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  10. Losing relevance... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Science board is trolling? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are quite a few "theories" that have been taken as fact, such as the concept of "races" in the single human race. Despite the fact that the idea of race is based on viable offspring interbreeding ablity some insist that varitial==race. Go figure.

    Race: "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." Species: "Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." funwithBSD: "An individual who needs to buy a dictionary."

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Devils advocate by Cheesey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  13. Christianity by kryliss · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't remember where I found this one but it seems to fit in with this thread.

    Christianity

    The belief that some cosmic, Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
    Makes perfect sense.

    --
    --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
  14. Re:Man, ALL religion is crazy... by ericrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Einsteins Theory of Gravity by mhall119 · · Score: 4, Informative

    G = Einstein's Gravitational constant G, the gravitational constant, was discovered by Newton, not Einstein.

    The other main issue is the value of G. 6.67 * 10^-11 is an awful number that Einstein hated. This was one of reasons why he spent the entire rest of his life searching for something better in the form of a Grand Theory of Everything. Unfortunately he never found it. Einstein didn't hate the gravitational constant, he hated his Cosmological Constant, which he only needed because he was trying to create a static universe, which later observations proved was not the case, so it turns out he never needed it in the first place.

    This only predicts the attractive force between two bodies (m1, m2), if you try and apply it to three bodies you have to approximate two of the bodies into one. Sometimes this works well but sometimes it falls down. Not at all, you simply run the calculation for A-B, B-C and C-A, then the "net" force on B is "A-B + B-C". You can do this for as many bodies as you wish.
    --
    http://www.mhall119.com