Bill Allows Teachers to Contradict Evolution

Helical writes "In an attempt to defy the newly approved state science standards, Florida Senator Rhonda Storms has proposed a bill that would allow teachers to contradict the teaching of evolution. Her bill states that 'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.' The bill's main focus is on protecting teachers who want to adopt alternative teaching plans from sanction, and to allow teachers the freedom to teach whatever they wish, even if it is in opposition to current standards."

Comments

This happens everywhere

[Naughty Bob]

I only had to look at my teachers to see that they contradicted evolution.

Re:This happens everywhere

[Psmylie]

They should put a little protection in there for those that want to teach the Flat Earth concept, too.

Re:This happens everywhere

[zakezuke]

They should put a little protection in there for those that want to teach the Flat Earth concept, too. Don't laugh, I went to a catholic grade school which had books in the library that honestly showed a earth centered solar system.

Re:This happens everywhere

[takanishi79]

Unfortunately, those religious zealots are also the ones that squawk the loudest. I attend a medium sized Christian University (just under 4,000 undergraduate students), and most of the professors, especially (yes, especially) the Bible and Theology professors, have no issues with Evolution and Creation. Believing that God created humanity does not automatically mean that we believe evolution is not an instrument, or is happening.

Sadly, the voices of religious people (reaching out into many faiths, beyond even Christianity) that agree with the scientific community that evolution happens, and has become an established theory, are lost in the din of assenters, including atheists, agnostics, etc. Then when the only people of religious persuasion that are heard are those who dissent, the rest of us get lumped in with them because we share a single common denominator. It's just as bad as calling Germans Nazis, Muslims terrorists, Americans fat, and the French sissy.

Re:This happens everywhere

[VultureMN]

In their defense, according to the theory of relativity, you can just as easily say that the Earth is just sitting here while the rest of the universe spins around it.

No, you cannot.

Velocity is relative, but acceleration is NOT relative. An orbiting body is in constant acceleration, so A orbiting B is not the same as B orbiting A.

(nitpickers will point out that they actually orbit their shared center-of-mass, but you know what I mean.)

Re:This happens everywhere

[mybadluck22]

Actually, they orbit their shared center-of-mass, but I know what you mean.

Re:This happens everywhere

[NoodleSlayer]

Wny yes, and this obviously is the Christian God, not the Nature's God referenced in the paragraph right above that quote.

In case you're confused:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Considering the deist nature of many of the founders, it's fairly obvious that they were referring to a more naturistic god then that referred to in whatever scripture you might choose. I find this overall to be a rather secular statement. In case you are confused secular means "of or relating to the worldly or temporal" not necessarily "no god." The statements in the Declaration towards the Laws of Nature and Nature's God are in fact very worldly.

Re:This happens everywhere

[apoc.famine]

Actually, I posted a short snarky comment because I had to go teach a science class. What you wrote is spot on, and touches on what I really wanted to say if given the time. Now that I'm taking the time...

While granted I'm in the NE US and not in the bible-belt, I still teach science at a public high school. With the passing of NCLB, there is an increased focus on standards, and teaching to those standards. States are required, due to this law, to assess whether or not their schools are effectively teaching the state-mandated standards. Teachers, therefore, are judged based on whether or not their students are successful on the state-designed tests.

On more than one front, this proposed law is completely pointless. The real test of what Florida wants teachers to teach is in what it assesses at the state-wide level. Without being able to see those assessments (being changed to align with the new state standards by 2012) there is no real way for me to tell what they are really looking for teachers to teach. Terminating teachers is usually pretty hard to do. By far the easiest way is if a teacher's students consistently fail state-wide exams.

And despite the flamebait headline, this also means that you can't get fired FOR TEACHING EVOLUTION. In Florida, that's not a given. The state standards that just passed had to be revised to tone down the endorsement of evolution just to get through. In that light, given that this text reads in part, "freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution", I'm somewhat tempted to say that this is PRO-Evolution, rather than anti-evolution. Although to be fair, it works both ways.

The upshot is that A) You're 100% right, and this is already covered in part by free speech. B) Teachers are judged and can be terminated based on how students do on state assessments, so this is pointless. C) While you now can't get fired for this, there are plenty of things buried in most contracts to get a teacher terminated for, if you really look hard enough. All in all, not a useful law in any meaningful way.

Re:This happens everywhere

[Keyslapper]

Free speech doctrine actually allows all of this to begin with, no need for any affirmative right. The question is whether the employer (school district) is constrained in its choice of whether to retain the employee.
This law eliminates causes for termination, more than anything, because it does not actually grant any rights the teacher (or anyone else) already has.

Uh, no, the Free Speech Doctrine most certainly does not apply. A public school teacher has no more right to talk about his or her beliefs to my child any more than I have the right to start teaching your children what I think they should learn about gay marriage, equal rights, and religion. That's your choice, not mine. Teachers do NOT have the right to teach their opinions to other people's children. They have the duty to teach the curriculum approved by the local and state school boards. Essentially, they are actors, presenting a pre-written script, and they can only ad-lib so long as they stick to the general plot. This is the real reason that good public school teachers are dreadfully underpaid.

And as for removing it as a cause for dismissal, that won't protect them from charges of civil rights violation.

Frankly, if someone tried to teach my daughter that ID was "fact" and evolution was "theory", I'd have them hauled in front of a Congressional Hearing for violation of my and my family's civil rights as fast as I could push the system.

What am I teaching her? Well, ID is illogical religious fanaticism - the kind that ultimately got witches burned at the stake, and that Evolution is a theory that far surpasses any current alternative explanation in logical plausibility. Since she and my wife are Eclectic Pagans, I think this is an argument that will stick.

Does that mean she isn't allowed to learn about other religions? Of course not; that's stifling her education. She's already learned quite a lot about all the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, ...) and even a fair bit about the Hindi and Buddhist faiths as well as my own preference, no faith - better known as Atheism. There's a big difference in teaching something as "what some people believe" and "what we believe". And it's a bigger difference still to instill the possibility that one day she may choose a different path. It seems to me that leaving this possibility out is dooming your child (or trying to) to a future of narrow minded dogma.

Re:This happens everywhere

[nitpickers]

See! I didn't say that, you insensitive clod! And never will!

Re:This happens everywhere

[ultranova]

No, you've got it backwards. Acceleration is a change in velocity. If the Earth is orbiting the sun, it is changing velocity (because it is constantly changing direction and not traveling in a straight line), and therefore is experiencing acceleration.

But it is traveling at a straight line. In reality both Earth and Sun are simply following a straight path at constant speed through curved spacetime. Since they are following a straight path at constant speed, their velocity is not changing, and thus they are not experiencing acceleration. It just seems like they are being accelerated for us due to our limited perceptive ability.

Gravity in general relativity isn't a force; it is a change in the definition of "straight".

The general theory of relativity follows from the idea that you cannot distinguish between the force due to acceleration and the force due to gravity. If you are standing up in a closed elevator experiencing 1 G, is that because the Earth is pulling on you, or is it because the elevator is accelerating "up" at 10 m/s? It doesn't matter: if you shine a light beam across the elevator, it will bend "down" no matter what is causing the "downward" force.

And if the elevator is orbiting the Earth or the Sun, you will experience no force (0G), and will thus conclude that you aren't experiencing acceleration.

Re:This happens everywhere

[cleatsupkeep]

Did you create that account just for the joke?

Re:This happens everywhere

[Reality Master 101]

first, we have to define terms. micro-evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. macro-evolution has *not* been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If only creationists *would* define terms. Most creationists use "Macroevolution" to mean any evolution for which we can't provide direct living or fossil evidence. In any case, Macro evolution is just accumulated micro-evolutionary steps.

*if* you had the irrefutable evidence, you'd present it. you don't, so you, well, don't. you just proclaim it truth and fact as though that makes it so... such arrogance.

I suggest reading this site. But you know you won't. Because your conclusion is already preordained. You have too much of your entire life invested in believing in supernaturalism.

there is some evidence for, there is some evidence against... we really don't know. that's the truth that should be taught in school.

Ah, the final weapon of the creationists. If they can find any question, now matter how small, that doesn't have a rock-solid answer, then they loudly proclaim that "HA! YOU SEE?? YOU SEE?? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!" Any open questions means that every theory is equally valid. It's akin to saying, "Since the Earth's horizon makes it look like a flat disk, therefore, the flat Earth theory is just as valid as the round Earth theory."

Well, every theory ISN'T equally valid. First of all, there is ZERO -- ZERO -- evidence against evolution. ZERO. There are certainly open questions about how certain things may have evolved, but that means there is a neutral question, not that it's "evidence against" evolution. So you have a Mount Everest of evidence for evolution, a large number of open questions (just the diversity of life and genetics means we're going to have a lot of open questions), zero evidence against evolution, and absolutely ZERO evidence that supports creationism. And, just to top it off, we have an entire planet-sized volume of evidence against the Earth being only 10,000 years old.

THAT is the carved-on-stone-tablet (if you'll pardon the expression) truth. If there really is a God (there isn't, but let's say), he must be constantly slapping his hand against his forehead screaming, "The bible is full of allegory, you idiots! What, do you think I could've explained physics to the damn barbarians?? Will you people use the brains I gave you, already?? It's a SOCIAL book, not a freaking science book!!"

Re:This happens everywhere

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It's an unwinnable proposition. Teaching and grading students on theories that contradict their (or their parents') religious believes is itself a form of religious education.

Bullshit. Accepting that requires teachers to pander to whatever religion the parents have, which is an establishment of religion. The best thing to do is have the parents teach the kids how to deal with the difference.

Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy (shouldn't we be teaching kids oral sex and same-sex experimentation if that's the only goal of sex ad)?

That's a religious argument - it's only being pushed by religious lobbies, and is actually less effective than condoms and the pill.

Democracy is the best form of government for every society

Then why don't we have one? Someone needs to go back to civics class.

All races and both genders are EXACTLY the same in all aspects and will be equally good at EVERY job in EXACTLY equal percentage of the corresponding population.

They are the same before the law, and you'd have trouble finding legitimate racial diffs in jobs, although some physical work is done better by men. Doesn't mean you get to tell a woman no for that construction job - you have to have a reason other than her breasts.

We don't need all our children brainwashed by the government into one single way of thinking, be it religious, political or scientific.

Says the person apparently defending the challenge to evolution going on in our schools. You preach about not indoctrinating the young while pushing an agenda of indoctrination. Nice.

Sounds fine to me

[mrchaotica]

What's the big deal? Stupid teachers still wouldn't be allowed to teach "Intelligent Design" anyway, since -- according to the summary -- the information still has to be scientific (and "ID" fails at that).

Re:Sounds fine to me

[KublaiKhan]

OK, now, prove to some fundamentalist teacher or other that it's not scientific, when they 'know' that it is.

Is there some religion or another that insists on reality? So that I can claim religious persecution by these fundies?

Re:Sounds fine to me

[geekoid]

As my ID pushing narrow minded coworker said:
"The Bible IS science."

I shit you not.

Re:Sounds fine to me

[flitty]

Woah woah woah, don't throw those nutjobs into Utah, The Discovery institute (major proponent of ID) is out of Seattle, Washington. Most scientists here in Utah are just for the dino fossils, cancer research, or cold fusion :D

Re:Sounds fine to me

[shawngarringer]

To say those sites are biased would be an understatement. Listen, there is no way that you can prove scientifically that "God did it" is right or wrong. So, it ain't science. So, there are not two sides to this argument. There is one side. ID is NOT science.

If you want to teach your kids that "God did it" is an acceptable answer to anything you don't personally understand, then fine, do that in your home or church or wherever... BUT don't pollute my children into believing that crap also. I'd like my kids to have a fair chance in the world economy, where in most 1st and 2nd world nations, they can manage to keep science to true scientific endeavors.

Re:Sounds fine to me

[MightyMartian]

If it's such good science, where is the research? Why is the Discovery Institute purely a political machine? Hell, one of its great minds (supposedly) Michael Behe has never ever published any peer-reviewed article or done any research involving ID.

ID is not science. It's watered-down Creationism, a legalistic attempt to sneak past the First Amendment. Read the Dover transcripts to find out just how much science there is to ID.

Re:Sounds fine to me

[Steve525]

Never teach students WHAT to think. Teach them HOW to think.

Be careful what you ask for. I think this is a great idea. First we teach students about problem solving, deduction, and, yes, scientific method. Then we give them two examples theories, and ask them which one is scientific.

1) A theory that...
a) was deduced using the available evidence at the time.
b) makes predictions that almost always turn out to be true.
c) on the occasion that the predictions are not 100% correct, refinements are made (unless the theory can not be refined to include the new evidence - in which case it is thrown out).
d) We go back to step b) and continue to make predictions and test the theory

or
2) A theory that...
a) uses a construct to handle unanswered questions in an earlier theory
b) this construct can never be used to make predictions
c) this construct can never be proven or disproven

furthermore...
I don't expect teacher's to teach the Aboriginal ideas of creation.
Why not? One religion's ideas of creation isn't any worse then anyone else's. The only reason ID doesn't seem as crazy as the Aboriginal ideas of creation is because ID stands on the evidence of evolution.

This is a story that gets repeated time and time again throughout history. Facts are taken in. (Stars are up in the sky). We don't have a scientific explanation for it, yet, so we turn to the supernatural. (The stars are the Gods - or put there by God). Eventually we learn, and we have more facts, and we realize, "hey, it wasn't God, after all". But as our knowledge isn't limitless, there's always going to be some things we don't know. It seems to be human nature to try to fill in our knowledge gaps with supernatural explanations, but it's never turned out to be correct in the past.

I generally agree with your statement that we shouldn't tie teacher's hands. We should allow them to teach things that aren't necessarily going to be on the curriculum. However, because of the separation of church and state, religion in a public school is a special circumstance. Any curriculum that teaches religion as truth, or even a possible truth is a bad idea. And make mistake about it, ID is most definitely teaching religion as a possible truth.

Thank Heavens for that

[krog]

God willing, math teachers will be the next to be freed from the chains of having to teach facts in school.

Re:BAD idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want the state OUT of my bedroom

Uh...you consider K-12 classrooms your bedroom?

Maybe you shoulda posted that as AC...

science?

[jmnormand]

so at what point do we stop letting english and business majors decide what science teacher should be able to teach?

Re:Weep for our republic, fear for our children...

[Anonymous Coward]

How come every time I read some news like this I start to hear "Dueling Bangos" playing?

How about a law that says that if I don't believe pot causes health problems I can choose to smoke it legally?

Under Who's Watch?

[Bananatree3]

The Intelligent Design crowd has pushed "scientific" evidence that is in their favor. Under what jurisdiction would the "scientific" basis fall? Would it be the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS?) The School District's "science" advisor? The teachers themselves?

Without a concrete definition of whose "science" you are using, any teacher could find some half-baked textbook that proclaims to be scientific and tell the School Administrators they're teaching true "scientific" information.

Re:Under Who's Watch?

[Hatta]

Without a concrete definition of whose "science" you are using, any teacher could find some half-baked textbook that proclaims to be scientific and tell the School Administrators they're teaching true "scientific" information.

There's a simple, unambiguous test anyone can apply to objectively determine whether a theory is scientific. That is: is the theory falsifiable? Does the theory make predictions that could potentially be proven wrong by evidence? Intelligent Design fails this test.

So if you have kids, and they are taught intelligent design in this school system, then sue. You'll win. Every time a judge has heard the issue, he's ruled that intelligent design is not science. Because it's not, and it's easy for anyone impartial to see that.

Re:Under Who's Watch?

[KublaiKhan]

The courts have clearly stated that ID is not scientific.

Re:Under Who's Watch?

[MightyMartian]

Apparently every court in the US is going to have to deal with this one. Creationism (and ID is simply a diluted almost claimless variant of that) has failed every time it's been taken to court. What it does do is waste millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Re:Under Who's Watch?

[Hatta]

It doesn't disprove intelligent design. It proves that intelligent design is unscientific. Unscientific beliefs could be correct, we have no way of knowing. But the point is, that since this bill would only allow teaching of the full range of scientific criticisms, that intelligent design is not included in that.

If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?

Right, now come up with an example for intelligent design. You can't, no matter what you observe you can explain it by saying God designed it that way.

The thing is, you either BELIEVE that God created everything or you BELIEVE that evolution is the reason we are here or you BELIEVE something else. There is no way to truly scientifically prove how things began. Both intelligent design and evolution are religions.

As the great prophet Groucho Marx once said, "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Evolution is confirmed by masses of predictions that have turned out to be true (i.e. evidence), intelligent design has none.

Re:Under Who's Watch?

[NMerriam]

I agree that is how to test weather something is scientific or not. However in what way does that disprove Intelligent Design?

It doesn't -- ID isn't disprovable, precisely because it isn't scientific. ID says "God did it". That's not of much use in a science class, because there's nothing scientific you can learn from that statement.

If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?

No, evolution says nothing about dinosaurs and humans being unable to live at the same time. We're from two completely different evolutionary trees -- reptiles and mammals. Geologists and paleontologists would be pretty shocked if such a thing were to be found, but evolution wouldn't be affected in any significant way.

There are, indeed, numerous things that COULD be found or occur that would disprove evolution, yet none of those things ever has. The fact that such things are able to be spelled out ahead of time, and then tested, is precisely what makes evolution science, and ID not science.

The thing is, you either BELIEVE that God created everything or you BELIEVE that evolution is the reason we are here or you BELIEVE something else. There is no way to truly scientifically prove how things began. Both intelligent design and evolution are religions.

Evolution has nothing to say about the reasons we are here or how things began. It is not a religion, and requires no faith. You can be a staunch creationist opposed to evolution and you will get the exact same experimental results with DNA manipulation, genome sequencing, carbon dating, and fruit fly reproduction, as a fervent believer in evolution. Predictable, repeatable results independent of the experimenter are the hallmark of real science -- evolution has many, and ID has none.

Re:Under Who's Watch?

[pangloss]

If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?

No, evolution says nothing about dinosaurs and humans being unable to live at the same time. [...] Geologists and paleontologists would be pretty shocked if such a thing were to be found, but evolution wouldn't be affected in any significant way. Richard Dawkins writes: "If a single, well-verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500-million year-old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed" [The Blind Watchmaker, 3rd ed., p. 320]. J. B. S. Haldane also said that "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" would constitute evidence that might contradict evolution.

Re:Under Who's Watch?

[Hatta]

Here your conflating the concepts of biogenesis (how life started) with evolution (how speciation occurred). Evolution as a theory is as well supported as any in science, but it doesn't address the origin of life itself specifically.

Biogenesis itself is a historical event and thus hard to treat scientifically. Even if you could recreate life in a test tube, that's not proof that it happened that way. So you're right, biogenesis will always be somewhat a matter of faith.

Which isn't to say we don't have plausible explanations for it, it's just not possible to directly confirm them by experiment. Our understanding of statistical mechanics makes it clear that an evolution like process could act on large populations of random polymers to favor those who self replicate.

So to conclude, you can either choose to believe that biogenesis occurred through natural processes well modeled by statistical mechanics, or that an invisible sky wizard wished us all into existence. There's no real way to prove which happened, but the reasonable choice is clear.

here we go again

[Protonk]

Creationism wrapped up in the guise of scientific knowledge and academic freedom. This is an OBVIOUS effort by members of the FL legislature to pander to religious groups. It just happens to be couched in an "academic freedom" argument. Don't buy it. It isn't value neutral and it isn't fair.

Students already face an uphill battle in getting over unscientific hunches formed in childhood. Evolution, in its fullness, is a rejection of those hunches. This bill clouds the issue by allowing teachers to present a curriculum that plays to those hunches in order to serve as religious indoctrination. Think about some of the main "tenets" of ID: the notion that complexity cannot occur from iterated evaluations of simple rules--they claim things like the eye are "too complex" to have been formed via "random" mutation. This SOUNDS reasonable, until you realize that it is just a play on our intuition. It isn't true in the slightest. The same with the claim that animals or humans were elegantly designed. While there is what some scientists would call elegance in plenty of biological forms, their implementation shows signs of prior adaptations. It takes a lot of careful study to learn exactly how and why our endocrine system or our vascular system is imperfectly adapted let alone begin to think about how pregnancy is an imperfect adaptation. This is why ID is primed for the 8-12 crowd. Those critical thinking skill are just solidifying. There isn't a large movement to teach ID in colleges because the material would be rejected at greater rates.

This is religious nonsense packages as science. Nothing more.

Standards

[Weaselmancer]

...to allow teachers the freedom to teach whatever they wish, even if it is in opposition to current standards.

Then they're not standards anymore. That's why we have standards, so you can be guaranteed a certain level of uniformity and quality. If you don't have to follow standards then they become suggestions.

I'd like to see these people eat a big pile of USDA Grade A beef - but with flexible standards that the stores are allowed to define as to what "USDA Grade A" actually means. Would you eat it? Hell no.

Re:Contradict a Theory?

[KublaiKhan]

Incorrect.

Apes, monkeys, and humans all evolved from a common primate ancestor. Due to differing environments and differing pressures and selection criteria for said differing environments, the populations of primate ancestor-species evolved in separate directions.

The 'missing' fossil evidence question is a red herring: every time a transitional fossil is found, the creationists say "OK, what came between that one and the next one?"--moving the goalposts, in other words. Archaeology is not geneology: you will not get a continual record of every generation back to when time began.

In addition, fossils are not the only evidence. There are patterns of genetic structures, there are cases of comparative anatomy, there are multiple other lines of evidence to choose from.

Re:Contradict a Theory?

[mrchaotica]

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the existance of an intermediate life form (monkeys) show that "natural" selection lost, as we now have humans (selected appearantly) and monkeys together (the life form that "lost").

Well, you are mistaken.

Here's a hint: if evolution really predicted that every time a speciation event occurred there would be a "loser" species that would go extinct, then it would predict that there would be exactly one species of organism on the entire planet. Obviously then, either evolution is absolutely ridiculous (since there is obviously more than one species in existence) or you don't understand it. Which is more likely?

Hint number two: both branches of a speciation event can "win" because they can fill different ecological niches. Monkeys lost out on the "high intelligence and tool-making" niche; humans lost out on the "living in tall trees" niche.

Let's see how well it protects...

[dpbsmith]

...teachers who elect to teach their students scientific material about homosexuality or birth control.

Or does the bill only protect the "freedom" to teach material on certain selected sides of certain selected controversies?

Yes!

[ADRA]

The flying spaghetti monster has always sought to be taught in Florida classrooms, and thanks to some foresight by genius politicians, he can!

Doonsbury had the right idea

[jollyreaper]

Doctor: Before I give you this injection, I have to ask you an important question: do you believe in evolution?

Patient: Of course, not! Why do you ask?

Doctor: You see, I have this flu shot here. If you believe in evolution, you will accept that the flu bug is constantly changing and evolving, thus your immune system will not recognize it and you'll come down with the flu. With this shot, your immune system will be up to date on the latest strain.

Patient: And if I don't believe in evolution?

Doctor: You've already had the flu once, therefore you'll never catch it again.

Patient: But that's not...that's not...true?

Doctor: As a liberal and scientist, I would never want to force another person to accept my own views and beliefs, even if they happen to be manifestly correct.

Or to put it another way:

adventurer #1: I do not believe there is a bear in that cave.
[mauling, violence, blood]
adventurer #2: So you say. But your disbelief seems not to have dissuaded the bear.

Here's some evidence for you.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Regarding the transition from apelike ancestors to the current varieties of primates, it's a lot more than theoretical. For example, if humans were created separately from chimpanzees, how come we share at least six endogenous retroviruses in the same places in our genomes, and no other primates have those retroviruses there?

And as to transitional fossils - here's my favorite, one you can even partially test on your own body. Lay your fingers on the side of your jaw. Now, trace along the edge up to the very top of the jawbone. Notice how close your fingers are to your ear canal. Inside the inner ear are three bones, the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. They are carefully arranged to transfer sound energy from the eardrum to the cochlea as efficiently as possible. How could such an amazing mechanism arise? (One that's been cited, even, as 'irreducibly complex' - just Google around a bit.)

It turns out that a classification of dinosaur called the therapsids had two jaw joints. The therapsids are known (by several independent lines of evidence) to be ancestral to modern mammals... and we have a basically complete fossil record of the gradual transition of one of those jaw joints into the modern bones of the inner ear. Fossils representing over 11 separate stages have been found. Note that intermediate steps were all advantageous, though not as efficient or optimized. Some transitional forms did help amplify sound energy but didn't work while the animal was chewing. We still have problems with that under some circumstances (try to listen to someone while eating celery) but the separation is far more developed now.

Common descent explains this, and many other similar things, handily. I'm still waiting on creationist explanations. Can you point me to one?

Re:Science != Teleology

[Dmala]

What I can't understand is how this is even a debate for public schools. I went to a Catholic school through junior high and there wasn't even a discussion about this. We were taught about evolution in science class, *and* in religion class we were taught that the creation stories were not meant to be taken literally.

Re:BAD idea.

[bunratty]

The way to challenge an accepted scientific theory is not to "critique" it. The way is to come up with alternative theories that make testable predictions, and then use the predictions to falsify the incorrect theories. What predictions does the "theory" of ID make, and how do we test them?

Dear America

[Dixie_Flatline]

The rest of the world doesn't care that you're stupiding up your children. It just makes it easier for us to crush you scientifically. Trust me when I say that the increasingly low standards for your science education just make us feel like there are more opportunities for us. I'm sure the Chinese, Japanese and Indians feel the same. The less you know, the easier it makes it for the rest of us to make stuff and sell it to you.

Thanks,

The Rest of the World (specifically those of us teaching our children proper scientific theory)

A Win for Flying Spaghetti Monster Worshipers!!

[erroneus]

I can't tell you what a progressive move this is for supporters of the movement for the recognition of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a religion! And if this bill passes, it will open the door for its truth to be taught in schools!

Please write your representatives to THANK them for opening the door for this wonderful moment in history!

Re:Good point...

[Yunzil]

Let's not forget that Evolution, especially with respect to the origin of species, also fails this test.

Nope. We've seen speciation occur.

Re:BAD idea.

[edwardpickman]

It's okay he's a Catholic Priest.

Re:BAD idea.

[eaolson]

What the real problem is is that the fundamental Atheists has successfully used scare tactics and FUD to get parents to believe that *teaching* about religion is the same as *preaching* religion and it's time people wake up to this tactic.

Actually, no. Speaking on behalf of all fundamentalist atheists everywhere, we have no problem with teaching about religion. Personally, I don't see how it would be possible to even have a significant understanding of most of Western literature (e.g., Shakespeare) without some understanding of the Bible.

The real problem is that the fundamentalist Christians don't want students learning about religion. They want teachers to be able to witness to students about Jesus. They're not interested in an intellectual discussion or about exposure to different ideas.

Wrong

[Lurker2288]

See, you're confused. If science had replaced religion, we wouldn't have people arguing about intelligent design right now, because the reigning neo-Darwinist authorities would have burned them alive as heretics. Instead, IDers are free to conduct whatever research they want to try to support their claims--the fact that they've got no evidence whatsoever is not because some Darwinian Inquistion has suppressed it, but because their ideas are substantially without merit. NOTHING makes your name in science like overthrowing the prevailing wisdom (assuming you've got the data to back it up). Tell me, what part of the Bible, or Talmud, or Koran says, "all this is subject to revision on the basis of new findings." None, because they all purport to be the One Source of Universal Truth. This kind of arrogance is staggering--I don't think even the most unhinged scientist would claim a perfect understanding of anything in nature. Science may at times become dogmatic, but that's not a failure of the concept, it's a failure of the human beings employing it.