If you’re like me, you have to work for a living and so had no chance to attend today’s public forum in Orlando concerning the new draft of the state science standards. There were apparently plenty of other folks who were able to attend, though, judging from various news accounts popping up. The St. Petersburg Times education blog reports that anti-evolution forces outnumbered the pro-science folks 2 to 1. The Orlando Sentinel education blog says that about 75 people had the opportunity to speak. It looks like those speaking on behalf of sound science had a firm grounding in the subject while those opposed … well … didn’t.
Richard Ellenburg, the Orange County science teacher who won the Florida Teacher of the Year honors last year, was one of a number of educators who urged passage of the new standards.
“Any dilution or revision of the standards would be a disservice to the students of Florida and to our very future,” he said.
But Julie Williams, a Panhandle woman, said passage of the standards would further diminish the “Christian influence” in public schools. “I am a Christian who does believe God created the world in seven days,” she said. “There are a lot of proven facts in the bible.”
TV station WFTV did a story for the noon news.
If you attended or were able to watch over the Internet, please tell us in the comments how it went.
I disagree with the 2:1 ratio reported. I watched online , it seemed about even, but the anti -evolution crowd seemed to control the first half (largely because a bus full of college students from a Christian College all arrived at the same time). The second half was dominated by science supporters.
Check previous thread for earlier comments.
I watched about an hour of it in the afternoon, and it seemed like there was an even representation of evolutionists and creation/design-ists. Good turnout on the evolution side: several university professors, educated parents, a member of Florida ACLU, three college students in a Freethought group, and a US House candidate for Northern Florida.
While several members of the public opposed to evolution made the mistake “teach as a theory, not fact” or attacked evolution as “a lie” and “ever-changing” – there were a few educators and a minister who’d spoken to pro-ID professors and were well-informed.
I appreciated hearing from them, but their argument was based on concerns that teaching evolution would be dogmatic. Evolution expands and builds on constructive criticism. ID/creationism would replace scientific gray areas with an undescribable, unknowable, and purposely vague “design force” which insults the intelligence of all sides. Adding a disclaimer will make students think evolution is just ‘some biased idea’ and ignore the important evidence being presented.
I wonder if Karen got to speak today?
I attended, and yes, the speakers were about 2:1 against voting in the new standards. I ran a tally throughout, and came up with 48 to 28, with a couple of them mixed in there that I wasn’t sure what the heck they were saying. The place looked like it seated about 150 to 160, so roughly half stood up and talked.
Some, especially the anti-science crowd, had some polished speeches prepared. In retrospect, I wish I’d have done the same. I spewed out a short blurb telling the panel that I was frightened for my kids; scared that science is being reduced in this country to something that is driven by majority rule. I was nervous as all hell, and I suck at public speaking, so I probably would have done better by just being quiet. Still, I feel better getting it off my chest.
I was glad to see a handful of the framers and writers of the proposed standards there to support them, and I was glad to see a couple of biology professors speak. I wish there had been more. It was great listening to them.
The panel sat stonefaced throughout, rarely showing any kind of agreement or disagreement with either side. Dr. Smith, the Director and the Commissioner all tended to nod as folks spoke, but I saw no obvious hints as to what they were thinking. Even when one lady stood there and declared that she was one of those folks who thought the earth was 6,000 years old and was created in a week, no one on the panel even cracked a smile.
The media was there in force in the beginning; I counted no less than 6 video cameras and two guys with still cameras. By the end, I noticed only two video cameras, presumably those used for the simucast and for the DVD that was to be produced for the boardmembers. None were present, and it wasn’t clear if any of them would be watching live. The reported from Fox35 looked downright bored while she was there, hoping I suppose for something juicy.
I was surprised at the number of people offering books and DVDs to the panel. Dr. Haithcock tactfully told one person that the Department already had a copy of the book being offered; thanks but no thanks.
It was frustrating, and it saddens me that there are so many people with so many oddly warped views of science. I guess that I’m cautiously optimistic that come next week, the board will do the right thing and vote in the standards – for my kids’ sake, and for the sake of all of our kids.
I flipped through all the evening news stations and most every station did a story on the meeting. Unfortunately, the majority of them played up the “theory” crap, thus making the situation worse.
I can work with print reporters quite well because they invest so much more time and effort into their stories. TV news is whole different animal. The one and only way to get your message across is to be there to talk in person with the reporters and be really determined to get your point across to the reporter and the viewing audience. A few pro-science folks who I saw interviewed just didn’t do a very good job at all. No offense to those people at all; I know the pressure of being in front of a camera. But I see today as a loss for pro-science overall.
I dipped in and out of the webcast throughout the day, using it as a “teachable moment” in my earth/space science classes. Unfortunately, my students were only able to pay attention to about 10 minutes at a time before dissolving into total disconnect.
Observations #1: How sad that almost all of the comments I saw dealt with the “E” word. Very little had to do with the standards over all. When you look at the new proposed standards next to the old standards, the difference is enormous.
Observation #2: The opposition does not seem to be very organized. Most of the “anti” speakers were spewing any number of statements and talking points available from a number of ID websites. None (that I saw) tried to take on the SCIENCE at all.
Observation #3: The opposition might want to consider screening the presentations of some of their supporters. Did any body else catch the gentleman who made an elaborate statement that involved our interstate highway system, intersecting highways at which the stop signs had been removed and semi-trailers carrying human waste and chickens? That was one presentation that my students really got into.
Disclaimer: I am one of the writers of the new earth & space science standards standards (Cush Copeland),
I remain confident that a week from tomorrow, the new standards will be approved by the state board of education.
Thank you for creating this organization in support of true science education.
@ Cush Copeland … ” Did any body else catch the gentleman who made an elaborate statement that involved our interstate highway system, intersecting highways at which the stop signs had been removed and semi-trailers carrying human waste and chickens?”
Yes. LOL!! BTW – Thank you for all of YOUR work as well!
BobH,
I thought you did well. You kept your message short, clear, and to the point. Many others couldn’t arrive at their point so decisively even when being told to sit down after running over their three minutes.
I thought about contacting WFTV. They showed pictures of the universe while talking about evolution. They are doing what they are supposed to do, create news stories and see where they lead.
The Evolution Theory.
When I attended school in Rhode Island we were taught evolution as “theoryâ€. The message taught was the evolution of species’. Because of the environment an animal or bird would change in appearance to survive. This evolution was accepted because it was observed.
Then we were exposed to Darwin and the famous series of pictures starting with an ape and six stages later a man walking upright. It was hard to couple the two and buy the theory that the ape needed to evolve for survival.
I have asked the question, “When did it stop?â€
If apes evolved and became human then why don’t we find primates in stages of evolution today?
Then see the women’s egg fertilized and a series of pictures of it “EVOLVING†into a baby. Are we now going to teach our children they are the same except one takes thousands of years and the other miracle of life takes nine months?
Bob
Bob – Primates (including humans) are still evolving. How much taller than your Grandfather are you? Why are some people – now – being born without an appendix? Or wisdom teeth? It takes millions and millions of years – and our planet is BILLIONS of years old.