The Florida Senate voted 21-17 Wednesday, following a strong majority vote in the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee, to submit the Evolution Academic Freedom Act for vote in the House.
If passed, the new bill will give full protections and freedoms for teachers and students in Florida schools to share views in the classroom that challenge some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The new bill was largely prompted by legislators after the Florida Board of Education decided to begin requiring the instruction of evolution in schools earlier this year.
Many teachers and students reportedly felt marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized if they shared personal views that ran counter to Darwinism.
Republican Sen. Ronda Storms, the bill’s sponsor, touted the successful passage of the bill in the Senate as a victory for academic freedom as she read from emails sent by supporters congratulating the measure.
"To say I have problems with evolution theory would be career suicide for me,” an email from a teacher explained, according to The Herald Tribune. The teacher added that those who oppose evolution were frequently called “religious idiots” and “rednecks.”
Republican Sen. Majority Leader Dan Webster also praised the bill, adding that it would help students “think critically” and “constantly raise questions,” according to The Orlando Sentinel.
Opponents of the bill, however, argued that the new measure was less about academic freedom than it was about the promotion of religion in schools.
"This bill is not about evolution. It's not even about academic freedom. It's an attempt to bring the controversial creationism into our public-school classrooms," said Democratic Sen. Arthenia Joyner, according to The Orlando Sentinel.
In addition to Florida, two other states, Missouri and Louisiana, have also submitted Academic Freedom legislation.
RSS
Comments
This legislation purportedly advances "academic freedom," but this is a disingenuous goal. Its real goal is to permit students and teachers to advance preferential religious beliefs in a reputable scientific venue. High school science teachers and students are not qualified to debate the veracity of basic scientific theory. In the article a teacher is quoted: "To say I have problems with evolution theory would be career suicide for me." Well, yes, it should be if your job is to teach science. Much like a history teacher would rightly say "To say I have problems with the French Revolution would be career suicide for me." Or a music teacher saying "To say I have problems with Bach would be career suicide for me." Science teachers whose personal superstitions prevent them from fulfilling their professional duties should perhaps consider a career change.
Science class should be about science teachers teaching sound science, and science students learning sound science. Evolution is sound science. Creationism/intelligent design is not sound science. It is not even science; it is theology. There should be no debate about evolution in a high school class since there IS NO CONTROVERSY in the mainstream scientific community about whether evolution is sound scientific theory. Any active debate is about the details of the process of evolution, not about whether it actually is the cause of biological diversity and change. Just pick up any peer-reviewed biology journal and see what I'm talking about. And before raising any objections to this statement, please check the list of rebuttals at
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
If you've got something new, I'd like to hear about it.
Ironically, this new approach by creationists to get the bible into science class employs the same relativism that they so distain: "academic freedom" means that all ideas equal theories and have equal validity regardless of the evidence. So, when listening in on a typical Florida science class you soon might hear: "Say, Jimmy, do you like evolution? No? What better idea do you have? That the earth was created in six days and that woman came from Adam's rib? Well that's a grand theory! You get an A. How about you, Jane? Brahma sprouted from the navel of Vishnu and created the heavens, the earth and the oceans from a lotus flower? What great science! You only get a B though, because your theory didn't include Jesus." Ok, that last bit was fatuous, but I couldn't help it.
A practical question about this legislation: will a student taking a a science test who answers that the earth is 100 years old receive a passing mark? Why not, if that's what he believes? Will this be the new format of science test questions?
1. How far away is the Sun from the Earth?
a) 93 million miles
b) 1000 miles
c) Whatever you think. Don't worry, this is always the correct answer.
thats why its called "evil-ution"
It is unfortunate that the conflict in this issue has been promoted as faith (specifically Christian faith) vs. Science. In fact this is a created conflict inconsistent with historical or informed Christian teachings. This issue was addressed by St. Augustine 1600 years ago.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
Augustine goes on in his writings to elaborate that the holy writings were to be understood as allegorical spiritual truth. This is consistent with all informed understandings of the Christian scriptures. For example in the new testament Christ constantly uses metaphor to explain his teachings to his disciples.
This is well articulated 1600 years later at this website http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html
Further there is nothing in the Great Commission or any other part of the Christian New Testament that impells or directs Christians to reject evolution.
Perhaps persons of sincerity can move beyond conflict to respect and tolerance.
'Dawkins hasn't discounted an intelligent agent for creation of life on earth. "
Right, he hasn't, still this intelligent agent he sees is personified as aliens as in his mind its more plausable than the supernatural alternative.
'Let's discuss why the conflicted Dawkins isn't 100% convinced that naturalism can explain all of life. "
Sure, as soon as you comment on my 2 vid links I left earlier. I comment on mine, I'll comment on yours.
agentorange;
Not everyone agrees with you. There are many more very intelligent scientists, philosophers and mathematicians that don't agree with you and your outspoken evolutionists leaders. They have satisfactorily established their theories and are winning converts.
"Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God."
Dawkins hasn't discounted an intelligent agent for creation of life on earth. He at least has a grasp of 'design inference' .
Antony Flew confessed he had to be intellectually honest to give up on Darwimian evolution and accept God as creator per the ID theory. He has a strong grasp of design inference as I do.
I suggest you try another tactic of attack rather than the tired dogmas used by the evolutionists. "since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.” Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty."
Let's discuss why the conflicted Dawkins isn't 100% convinced that naturalism can explain all of life. Let's discuss why an outspoken atheist/evolutionist Antony Flew converted when presented with the truth claims of ID.
HAWK/Parrot,
‘I'll still use cut and paste when I deem it appropriate.”
You use it all day every day when it comes to discussing evolution or science in general. You know nothing of them and copy and pasting is all you can manage. And sure enough below you managed to squeeze another verbatim quote, well done.
“The philosophy of naturalism only looks at material and energy for causes and excludes consideration for the supernatural.”
You know why don’t ya? B/c that is HOW Science works. Science isn’t allowed to invoke ‘god made it that way’ or supernatural answers to equations, as they’re not falsifiable. The natural and material world is ALL that science is allowed to use to explain things, this is why its basis is always a natural one.
“Behe's observations for IC are still valid regardless of the derisions from evolutionists that Behe and the folks at DI have successfully responded to”
Still valid, really which ones? I have seen Behe’s instances for IC been tossed aside after being gutted, but I’ve yet to hear a counter argument from the ID side on them. Here, watch Miller describe why IC fails. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
"You put your faith in naturalism and I converted first to ID then to creationism after I accepted them to conform better to reality than naturalism.”
Really, then what do you make of these? Let me guess, ‘da designer made it that way!’ Sorry, but that’s not a falsifiable answer and as such isn’t science.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
agentorange;
I'll still use cut and paste when I deem it appropriate.
Try these for starters (they are part of the article I refered you to). Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht. Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and the popular-level Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine.
All science is interpretation from a worldview. All science evidence that I know of is material, energy and/or intelligence. The philosophy of naturalism only looks at material and energy for causes and excludes consideration for the supernatural. That's why it comes up short for considering intelligence within design; there is no sound naturalism explanation for it (Dawkins highly intelligent space aliens designing life on earth is not in the realm of naturalism; Dawkins is truly conflicted).
"Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:
sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:"
Behe's observations for IC are still valid regardless of the derisions from evolutionists that Behe and the folks at DI have successfully responded to. I'll let the testimonies from DI and ICR and that of Antony Flew and others ride with that position.
It still comes down to differences of religious worldviews and the validity of the presuppositions; naturalism Vs creationism or ID. You put your faith in naturalism and I converted first to ID then to creationism after I accepted them to conform better to reality than naturalism.
HAWK,
"what is wrong with copy and paste when it fits with the discussion or situtation? "
Are you kidding? simply copying and pasting shows how utterly little you truly know, if you write something and then source it, then that's different, you quoted word for word like you wrote it.
"naturalism (scientism) of evolution is one of those worldview issues and how it is used to interpret evidence"
You must be kidding again right? ALL SCIENCE evidence is directly the NATURAL kind, evolution is not the only one to refer to the natural, material world.
". Dawkins obviously is conflicted over this issue as well."
No he's not. Dawkinds finds ID personified by aliens (natrual mind you) as opposed to a supernatural ID is quite a difference.
"Creation science and ID also interpret the same evidence from their respective philosophical perspectives and obviously come to different conclusions many times."
Ok, I asked for some actual evidence for 'creation theory' as you so elequently put it, if the 1982 book by Morris is all you have, keep trying. any evidence for ID?
"Just a footnote, steveh20...how do you get Dr. Who at 4 in the afternoon? Must not be BBC America."
I'm in the UK, though I was watching Saturdays edition I'd recorded, 4th series is shaping up nicely.
BW
Steve
Hey Shu,
Not sure if you and Steve touched upon singularity from a naturalist point of view to the Big Bang, but Ravi Zacharias in Jesus Among Other Gods (pp 62-64) spends a little effort on this along with invoking David Hume and causality. Could be worthwhile to review. It jumps from philosophy at the singularity stage to physics once the 'big bang' occurs. Has the physicists stumped.
God Bless
agentorangex...Wow! You found a copy! Yep. It's a bit of an old book but I do believe the Bible is a tad older. :-) It was to prove a point. We are more interested in "the latest and greatest" to believe instead of the never changing. People can argue about evolution vs. creation from now until the Lord returns and never reach agreement.
It's about faith. What do you believe? Do you trust the Bible? Do you trust evolution? Do you trust science? Do you trust the media? I worked in the media for over a dozen years. If you give me a subject and how you want the story to come out...given enough time I could make the story prove anything just about.
Neither evolution nor creation is about science. It's about answering to God. If creation is true then you must accept answering to God. If evolution is true then you don't have to (unless you believe in theistic evolution and that would just really make this whole conversation a bit more complicated....)
My position is simple. There will never be enough conclusive evidence to prove one position or the other. It doesn't hold to the scientific method and takes away valueable time from the classroom. Science class should be about the scientific method.
Just a footnote, steveh20...how do you get Dr. Who at 4 in the afternoon? Must not be BBC America.
"I'd also suggest a more thorough study on the subject of causation."
Thanks I'll revisit my well thumbed Hume (I love him, he set me straight on so much)
Regards
Steve
Steve -
First, philosophy means "lover of wisdom" or "to love wisdom"; when I ask what philosophical explanations best fits the facts, I mean just that: what are the best and most truthful conclusions we come to when all is said and done.
<<I'll take matter before mind because there's lots we don't know, funny thing, you see that as an alternative but I see it as mainstream.>>
Well, I wish you good luck with that. When you can show how things like personality, love, thought, meaning, etc., come from mindless matter like a rock, let us know. I'd also suggest a more thorough study on the subject of causation.
On other thought , the the very start of the universe is not a "normal event" in everyday speak so our everyday philosphy breaks down, it becomes meaningless ,all the philosophy you mention is "everyday" based on time and space as we experience it. I think that this is what many philosphers forget (many of them are stuck up there own back sides anyway-not all )
Steve
I'll take matter before mind because there's lots we don't know, funny thing, you see that as an alternative but I see it as mainstream.
Steve