The Florida legislative session is mercifully over and the instructional materials bills we’ve been tracking are history. These ill-conceived bills would have changed the way textbooks and other educational tools are reviewed and selected, handing entirely too much power to well meaning but non-expert parents and not so well meaning, ideologically driven special interest groups. You can learn more about the bills and why there were bad for science education in our news release and series of blog posts.
I told the National Center for Science Education this weekend:Â “We’re fortunate and happy that these bad bills didn’t get out of the starting gate,” Florida Citizens for Science’s Brandon Haught told NCSE. “The good thing to come out of this brief fight is that a clear anti-science motivation behind these bills is now documented. The bills’ sponsors and supporters aren’t likely to give up, though. But we’ll be ready, just as we have been for a full ten years now.”
I predict that the main cheerleaders for these bills, Florida Citizens Alliance, will be back. They have a sizable network and they visited Tallahassee in person to help round up four co-sponsors on the senate bill and 19 co-sponsors on the house bill. They’re worth keeping an eye on.
On the other hand, as I told NCSE, the good thing is that Florida Citizens Alliance handed us all sorts of evidence of their anti-science views, which can be very useful in the future. And we also made some very good friends with other groups opposed to the Alliance’s antics.
Whew!
Thank you guys for staying on top of this, of course, this is just one battle won in a war that is not over yet.
Brandon, I’ve only been able to find where Florida Citizens Alliance was complaining about a world history text book, along with Islamic indoctrination and some sexual trash, not science books. It appears there is only allegations of an anti-science ulterior motive. Evolution is well established in science books and probably here to stay for the duration. In your post you say FCA has given you all sorts of evidence of their anti-science views. Is that evidence something you would share? Thanks
Chris – learn how to use a search engine.
Or just go to http://floridacitizensalliance.com/liberty/collier-textbook-review-greg-harper-world-history-ancient-civilizations/ (an FCA entry from, it seems, 2015) …
Also please note that what some consider “sexual trash”, others consider basic health education. I dunno the FCS position on all this, but I see it as part of applied science.
Pierce-Surly this wasn’t what I was asking for. But thanks for showing me the Florida Citizens Alliance fact check deal. I’d missed it before.
From first impression it looks like this book should replace newspaper at the out house and not be used in a classroom.
In 1959 a survey was taken of leading American scientists as to their belief in the age of the universe. Their belief along with Aristotle and Plato was that there was no beginning, the universe was eternal. In 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang and everything changed. After thousands of years science finally woke up and agree with the Torah, the universe had a beginning. I wonder how much longer secular humanist like Johanson will be able promote their agenda and cash in on these vaporizing transitions like Lucy. At some point science will again wake up and agree with the same book that said there was a beginning and note man an ape are not related by ancestry.
Placing every form of sexual activity under the umbrella of basic health education might be the problem for thousands of parents.
Who is teaching and what, is an real issue. According to Mohammad having sex with a sheep, cows, camels or goat is perfectly fine if there are no women around. I’m not sure what forms of sex are acceptable with the beast of your choice, but would it matter.
I know we all have different opinions, but do you agree that the fourth grade is the right year to teach students about lubricants for safe anal sex? And is about ten year old the right age for the public school system to teach your daughter the fundamentals oral sex along with holding hands? I could be wrong, but is this the basic health education stuff you don’t want omitted from school curriculum?
Chris –
Chris, Chris *shaking my head*
In 1927Georges Lemaître published his calculations showing both the expansion of the universe and estimating, from the rate of expansion, how long the process took from a hypothetical single point (which much later Fred Hoyle mocked as “the Big Bang”). Lemaître’s work still holds up 89 years later (Hoyle’s, mostly, doesn’t).
I have some serious doubts about your unnamed, uncited, unlinked 1959 survey – but have no doubts about the fallacy of you (and whatever source you’re cribbing) cherry-picking one case from over half a century ago to attempt to nyah-nyah all of the science which doesn’t support your favorite fables.
… vaporizing transitions like Lucy.
The fossils discovered by Leakey, Johansen, et alia, remain quite solid, with no reports of sublimation (nor of transubstantiation). Likewise for all the other physical evidence supporting evolutionary models.
… do you agree that the fourth grade is the right year to teach students about lubricants for safe anal sex?
Do you have any evidence that this occurs in Florida classrooms*, any evidence at all other than your own overheated and disturbing imagination?
I could be wrong…
The probability of this grows ever more asymptotic with every comment you upload.
*Public ones, anyhow – not counting special after-school seminars by kindly Father Geoghan at Our Lady of Perpetual Credulity in Ave Maria, FL 34142…
Pierce, be careful shaking your head I wasn’t referring to the expansion of the universe, that’s another biblical revelation. The point was the universe had a beginning.
http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasics/a/Origin-Of-The-Universe.htm
If you want to believe Leakey and Johansen have dug up transitional ape/human ancestors it’s good with me, I’m enjoying the show. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17873752/#.VvH9yUK7cd Facelift?
Oops, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3034395/Why-baboon-bone-Lucy-s-skeleton-Scientists-make-bizarre-discovery-3-2-million-year-old-fossil-early-human.html
These guys are going to spend a little bit more time when the make these things.
As a free thinker I’m sure morality can be what ever you make it. Goats, lubricants and holding hands all have a place in science, logic and reason.
Pierce, I wasn’t referring to the expansion of the universe, that’s another biblical revelation. The point was the universe had a beginning.
http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasics/a/Origin-Of-The-Universe.htm
Chris (twice): … the expansion of the universe, that’s another biblical revelation.
Book, chapter, & verse, please.
Citing the Daily Fail may not dig quite so deep into the muck as relying on, say, Kent Hovind’s ravings – but it still comes to less than nothing when compared to, y’know, actual paleontologists.
These guys are going to spend a little bit more time when the make these things.
Pls try again, with proof-reading before clicking that “Submit Comment” button.
Goats, lubricants and holding hands all have a place in science, logic and reason.
Pls try again, with some effort at making sense.
And about that “any evidence at all” request in my previous comment: whatcha got?
Pierce-What kind of evidence would you be looking for? Would it be real evidence man doesn’t have a common ancestor with apes? I think it’s confirmation of your belief you’re after, not evidence. Your only evidence for common ancestry between ape and human is to belittle any opposition.
After finding numerous skeletal remains on and just under the surface of the ground, later in 1986 Johanson stated, Lucy’s knee joint was found a year earlier over a mile away and 200’ feet deeper in strata. Later we see that the knee is said to be typical of her kind and may not be hers. Her kind, which has ape hands and ape feet is completely incapable of leaving any footprints resembling human. Which means the Laetoli footprints presently, other than human, have no foot that fits. And then there is paleontologist Charles E. Oxnard with a list of credentials beyond expert who says the extinct apes called australopithecines have noting to do with the ancestry of man at all. In 1996 German scientist doing study on Lucy’s pelvis said, ‘she’ may have been a ‘he’. And now we find a baboon bone in the pile of remains.
Is the appearance of Lucy the achievements of the real paleontologist you’re talking about? She is said to be the best candidate for direct ancestry between apes and humans. She is it, the cream of the crop. Without being rude, the only plausible explanation I can find for Lucy’s popularity is Satanic deception. In which case Lucy’s existence doesn’t disprove the Bible, she confirms it.
The display of Lucy’s statue at the St. Louis Zoo with human hands, feet and eyes is closer to a pagan god than anything to do with human ancestry or science.
Chris – What kind of evidence would you be looking for? Would it be real evidence man doesn’t have a common ancestor with apes?
* sigh *
Pls try to recall the context (hint: see comments above). What evidence do you have for your contention that anyone in Fla public schools considers “the fourth grade is the right year to teach students about lubricants for safe anal sex”? Either produce that, or admit you’re making up wild accusations for sheer sensationalism – or parroting somebody you really should know better than to take seriously.
As for the paper Charles Oxnard published more than 40 years ago, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html.
(Pro tip: go to talkorigins.org for a fact-check each time you get the urge to indulge in denialism of biological science; it will save us all from wasted efforts. Incidentally, I went to the NBC & Daily Fail links you provided, and was duly unsurprised that neither provides any information challenging the scientific account of human evolution.)
Also please note that most paleontologists agree that hominids went through a series of speciations – only some of which survived to contribute to the modern human gene pool.
You do have a point about statues, which have very little to do with the actual work of real science outside of archaeology. Next, try to find a report of somebody, anybody, worshiping educational artwork at the St. Louis Zoo (bonus points if they are also 4th-grade public school teachers providing lessons in anal sex).
Pierce- – Learn ho to use a search engine, try sex perversion in public schools
You’ll have no problem finding inappropriate teaching all over the country in the name of health. You can also find where in the congressional record of 1963 the communist goals for destroying America included promotion of homosexuality, pornography and discrediting the traditional family as an institution.
Going to the atheist site Talk Origins exclusively for factual information is like eating mud-pies as a balanced diet. Lucy is a dead ape, nothing more, nothing less. Just because it was 40 years ago when Oxnard said Lucy was not related doesn’t mean she, he or it is related now.
You’re wrong. The Lucy statue, along with artist renderings, fossil claims and commentary have every thing to do with the actual perception of archaeological science. Without these and other frauds, evolution would be history overnight.
Chris – Nice try, but learn to spell-check & punctuate before trying advanced moves like sarcasm.
…try sex perversion in public schools
You’ll have no problem finding inappropriate teaching all over the country in the name of health.
Nah, all that gets you is a gaggle of tight-assed hyperchristians freaking out over their own projections. (Ditto for that Bircher nonsense – do you really think Congress exercises any fact-checking as to what its members put in the Record?)
No, Chris, talkorigins.org was created and edited by people trained in real science (some Christians, some not) – it’s not their fault that no evidence of intervention by any gods shows up in physical reality.
And indeed it’s not the age of Oxnard’s overstretched assertions that invalidates them, it’s all the evidence against them – and the collective creationist failure to turn up anything else in four decades – that dumps them in the landfill of failed scientific claims.
I gotta give ya points for chutzpah – utterly failing to produce anything supporting your slander against Fla public schools and accusing other people of fraud in the same comment, on the holiest day of your own religion’s calendar, while abusing archaeology factlessly, makes you a serious contender for the Gold Dunce Cap of 2016.
Pierce said, “while abusing archaeology factlessly, makes you a serious contender for the Gold Dunce Cap of 2016.”
If there is a vote for this I will willingly cast mine for Chris
Pierce-
I might agree it’s doubtful Congress would be fact checking anything. But it would appear our present government is not checking but following the 1963 Communist goals I mentioned. With a constitution hating president, two pro communist leftist, and a bunch of wishes washy conservatives running for his job I would say Obama’s fundamental transformation is almost here. Just incase your ignorance includes their agenda I’ll include a site for your enjoyment.
http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm
For you as a disciple of Darwin I would say Talk Origins has a wealth of twisted and out of context information. Truly a valuable tool for those cutting the foot to fit the shoe.
I see you were unable to find or comprehend the concerns of parents over morality issues. But then again I suppose you faith would have no basis for morality or immorality. No Absolute standard, only subjective fallible opinion.
You might be right about Christians freaking out over predictions. It’s one thing to read about this stuff in the Bible but it’s another thing to see it happening live on TV.
Well Ivorygirl it’s alway good to here from you. Thanks for the vote. I’ve always counted it an honor to be considered different from those who claim to be the decedents of small brained ape ancestors.
Chris, My new employment as assistant professor of biology with a state university, doesn’t give me much time to engage in dialogue on this web site. I do visit from time to time, particularly when I need some light entertainment. You never cease to cheer me up with your mindless incredulity and total lack of scientific perception. Thank you for that.
Chris –
I might agree it’s doubtful Congress would be fact checking anything.
Sheesh – even when you try to agree with me you get it wrong. I said Congress doesn’t check what its members put in the Congressional Record – but they do regularly hold hearings, order staff investigations, request executive branch reports, and more. All those processes can be and have been rigged, but they do, at least when not dominated by teabaggers check some things.
… following the 1963 Communist goals …
Comic books! Rock and roll! Fluoridated water! Racial integration! It must all be STOPPED!!!1!
… a bunch of wishes washy conservatives …
Jesus Hussein Christ, you consider Trump, Cruz, & Kasich “wishes [sic] washy”?
Just for the sake of my morbid curiosity, pls name someone you consider a solid conservative.
Or maybe you just did. Jeff Rense, for crysake:
No, I am not a “disciple of Darwin”, nor of anybody else.
I would say Talk Origins has a wealth of twisted and out of context information.
No doubt you would say that. No doubt you will evade and change the subject when asked to provide examples, with factual support and links to reliable sources. Pls consider yrself asked.
What you “see” and what exists don’t seem to line up very well. Likewise for what you “suppose”. But neither this web site nor this thread is about me.
Speaking of the Bible, you still haven’t produced a single byte answering my question as to where it reveals the expansion of the universe. Astrophysicists everywhere would surely like to know how they missed that for so many centuries!
Oh yeah – also pls cite yr evidence about those 4th-grade Fla public school classrooms.
Pierce, probable the reason your astrologers are in the dark is because they’re reading their horoscopes and tarot cards wile trying to incorporate the monkey story into the mix. In your present state it’s more than likely a waste of time but here’s a few verses you can ponder on the universe.
http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html
Morbid curiosity. This might be a little off topic. If I were to guess which communist you will be voting for I’d have to say either. I like Huckabee but the country is to far over the cliff for somebody like him. Crews and Bernie won’t make it and they have got to kill Trump one way or another, he might fix something. If the country makes it to the next election the only group with a chance who agrees with and has promoted most of those 45 communist goals you liked would be the Clinton crime family represented by Hillary. Hillary’s my guess, not my vote.
Now why would I bother answering your silly questions? My information wouldn’t agree with your religious world view and you’d just confuse yourself with it anyway. Show me where I specifically said anything about Florida 4th graders in the public school and I’ll show you where I got it.
Ivory girl, Congratulations on your new employment if I haven’t said it before. I’m glad to see in some small way I may have brightened you day. From what you’ve said I’m sure you’re a little hairier than most girls I know. But be assured you’ll always be my friend.
Chris – Really, Trump’s crude and gross approach to women makes him a very poor role model, even for a fact-averse person like yourself. You owe Ivorygirl, and everyone reading this, an apology.
I’ll look at your link later, but, regarding your closing point, have to point you to the last paragraph of the 5th comment (your 2nd comment) on this very page.
Pierce – I’m not sure why I owe anyone an apology. Ivorygirl and I may be polar opposites, but she’s smart lady and I’m sure see knows it’s all in fun nothing personal. That only leaves your imagination which I can’t apologize for.
Role model, you’ve got to be kidding. What would your vision of a role model president look like?
Chris – “Yeah, yeah, it was only a joke…” Bigots use this lame defense all the time, and each time it only fools the person saying it.
Just don’t try to claim the moral (or any other) high ground ever again, okay?
Meanwhile, I did look at your link, and was relieved to find creationists.org did, somewhere along the line, learn how to spell that difficult word “stretch”. Moreover, they were honest enough to point out that
Cosmologists, however, report that not only does expansion continue, it continues to accelerate. Alas, yet another biblical “prediction” crashes into a deep swamp, leaving only a few bubbles of methane.
Now, how about (a) some evidence for your own scurrilous claim in comment # 5, and (b) apologies to Ivorygirl and Florida Citizens for Science for your immature sexist snottiness?
Pierce, here we go again with your imagination. I never have claimed any moral high ground. Care to tell us why or what you’re doing to make you feel less moral or immoral?
I’m glad you took the time to look up those links. But you’re confused yourself again. The bible contains numerous scientific facts but it’s not a science book. The historical record in the bible may not fit into your secular humanist view of the world. The bible gives us a snapshot of creation, the creator, dimensions beyond the one we live in, the future, the past, where we are and where we’re going along with much more. There is no bubbling methane no crashing and burning, except in your own constricted mind.
Sorry, in #5 I ask you some simple questions you refuse to answer. The information which inspired those questions is readily available to anyone interested.
Chris – Please stop and take a look at your “contributions” to this thread.
You have spewed lies and nonsense, insults and childishness, arrogance and ignorance.
When called out on specific inane statements, you demanded that others do your specific work of finding support for the unsupportable claims you have made. When given links to detailed and scientifically-informed sources, you responded with more unfounded sneers and denials, refusing to engage with facts or any trace of reason.
Whenever someone asks why educators, scientists, and informed amateurs tend to roll their eyes and/or grit their teeth at dealing with creationists, all I’ll have to do is point them to this page and they will see the closed-minded, conceited, impenetrable egotism that gives so many fundamentalist Christians such a bad name.
Here’s my final suggestion: ask your pastor, or anyone else sharing your viewpoint and having some skill at communication, to review this and your previous postings here. Request some tips as to how you might carry on a dialog that could open a serious conversation, or least make others feel they had met a functional mind deserving a modicum of respect for a sincere effort at presenting a coherent perspective.
Then listen to them as they explain how you’ve made your faith, and yourself, come across in ways guaranteed to repel anyone and everyone not already locked into rigid doctrine and smug certainty that Chris is always right about everything.
Either that, or just go away.
Pierce – Perhaps you should stop and take a look at your contributions to this thread. Originally I posted several reasons why parents would be upset and why a mechanism such as the Instructional material bill might have merit. And now from our discussion it’s reasonable to assume that any form of morality, accuracy in history, the indoctrination of false religions, or anything else is little more than collateral damage in the quest to support and defend the scientific operational model of metaphysical naturalism within evolution’s theory. And the very fact that some one like myself or thousands of others who find problems in the new curriculum which might also bring into question some of the unfounded claims of evolution’s naturalistic worldview is the reason you’re wetting your pants.
Claiming to be informed as you say you are and then providing nothing other than the same old BS leaves you open to ridicule and insult. I’m quite confident I’ve received far more insults than I’ve produced. But regardless to that i’m still here waiting for something of substance. It’s not about about being right, I have a problem with nothing doing anything let alone nothing doing everything.
Canned comments like this, “The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.†For those who can accept such commentary as the final answer congratulations you’ve successfully reached the end of your indoctrination period. But for those who see a problem of deceptive omission with the intended definition of evolution concerning origins in this statement, good luck getting any real evidence or a straight answer from any of the expert fields listed above.
The popularized belief evolution is to include all life from non living matter to it’s present state requires the humanistic biased worldview of unmearsuable, unobservable and non repeatable scientific data as a fact. While there is no viable proposition of anything remotely similar to forming life from non life this belief is defended as fact to the death. The only realistic purpose to destroy the scientific method so bastardly would to eliminate the thought of an intelligence involved. Here in lies a problem.
Here’s a final suggestion for you show me I’m wrong. There is no closed-mindedness here I’m wide open, convince me your right that nothing did it all with real facts, no drawings, no suppositions, or unseen possibilities just verifiable truth from you, if you have it.
Chris – Getting all huffy and formalistic now neither excuses nor ameliorates your offensive, childish, and dishonest comments before.
And the very fact that some one like myself … who find problems in the new curriculum …
Repeating lies does not make them true. If you had actually found what you claim, you would have been able to demonstrate some evidence of same.
The same applies for all your gaseous verbiage about “unfounded claims of evolution” (I’ve already given you multiple serious examples) – either put up or shut up.
My earlier comment has been held for moderation – and since there’s no telling when our busy blogging host may get around to that, here’s a version with only two links, in hopes it will pass the automatic filtering process here:
Chris – Getting all huffy and formalistic now neither excuses nor ameliorates your offensive, childish, and dishonest comments before.
And the very fact that some one like myself … who find problems in the new curriculum …
Repeating lies does not make them true. If you had actually found what you claim, you would have been able to demonstrate some evidence of same.
The same applies for all your gaseous verbiage about “unfounded claims of evolution” (I’ve already given you multiple serious examples) – either put up or shut up.
Pierce, I love your serious evidence. Understanding Evolution is a great site to fully understand how the theory is supported. And you’ve chosen a excellent place to start our discussion ‘Unmuddying the Cambrian waters’
I see that the writer begins with a disclaimer indicating the evidence for the following information could be from clues which are sparse and unreliable. After making the statement that the clues for the most part come from fossils he goes on to say that the fossil record where the clues come from is notoriously incomplete. Its apparent the evidence of fully formed vibrant life here does not fit within the evolutionary model. Isn’t it obvious the notoriously incomplete determination came from the preconception of evolution, not facts.
It should be noted here that Cambrian life and its evidence as seen fits perfectly within the creation model. Sudden appearance – mass extinction.
A claim which doesn’t match your humanistic world view doesn’t mean it’s unfounded or a lie. You’re beginning to sound delusional.
Chris – You don’t seem to grasp the meaning of the closing line in my previous comment.
Specifically the “put up” part. (It means “show solid evidence”.)
Go back and read the last two words of that comment, then, and show us you understand them.
Pierce – No problem. You are delusional.
Chris and Pierce – I have read your discourse with great interest and your exchanges have been quite illuminating to say the least. So I would like to pose a question to you both and I would be interested to hear your answers. Imagine I’m an alien visiting earth with the obvious intelligence to travel between solar systems and I ask each one of you how the earth was formed and to explain human metamorphosis, who do you think could produce the most cognitive and fact based answers? This question is obviously partly rhetorical as I already know Pierce’s response, so Chris. Give me your best scientific answers that would convince an alien with zero cultural understanding of this world.
Ivorygirl – Great question. As has been said many times before the answer to those questions would have much do to with ones world view and the corresponding evidence that supports those views. Neither Pierce nor myself were present or had any part in the formation of the universe or humanity so our answers would be based on what is seen in the present and the best available information.
I would have to say much more is not known than known about these events. As time passes more and more information shows what is in existence but not necessarily always how it got there. For instance pryer to Edwin Hubble astronomers believed the universe was static based on their scientific evidence. And now less than 20 years ago scientist have discovered that the universe is not just expanding but the expansion is accelerating. This ins’t to say that science is wrong on every conclusion but better information can better define reality. It’s said radiation is produced by the exceleration of matter entering a black hole. This very well could be true, but this does not answer it’s purpose or if there is one. Stars have been observed during the process of dying. But none have been observed forming. So was their appearance a one time event or an ongoing process? The same question can be ask of the earth.
One of the interesting things I see here is again both views are looking at the same evidence and arriving at different conclusions. According to naturalistic evolution life sprung up from non-living chemicals at some time in earth’s past. And because we see no evidence or examples of this process now it is theorized that conditions were different at the time when life first appeared. As time passes evolutionary science must carefully select corresponding evidence as the odds are not in the favor of unguided evolution. The fine tuning of the earth’s surface and it’s atmosphere which is ecential for life to exist shows no signs of the environment creating life. The building blocks of life are readily available everywhere with the exception of one component that being life itself. Life appears to not be an earthly component. With all things considered the real evidence shows a spontaneous appearance of life unduplicatable by anything known to man.
I would have to tell are alien friends that the evidence shows that the earth and everything in it was formed and made by an intelligence far greater than our own. Then I’d give him a Bible.
Astronomer Hugh Ross has some in-lighting information on this subject. http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/hugh-ross
I happened to stumble across this site which gives a few Biblical evidences appropriate for our alien visitors.
http://bibleevidences.com/index.htm