The Tallahassee Democrat quite rightly praises lawmakers who passed up seeing the Expelled movie. I have yet to see an official count of how many lawmakers actually went to the movie, but I have heard from sources that the number is in single digits.
But the evening at downtown’s IMAX Theater, which was rented out to Mr. Stein’s group for $940, was a bust, with only about 100 people attending the movie. And most of those weren’t lawmakers who were (tiptoeing out on that limb now) apparently not really interested in wading into a dispute that exacerbates two controversies.
More DI doubletalking
Ironically, the only reason Florida Darwinists would have to fear that this bill might protect intelligent design somewhere down the road is if they already have concluded they cannot win the debate over whether ID is science. Indeed, by insisting that intelligent design must be covered by the bill, Darwinists in Florida seem to have admitted that despite their rhetoric, they really believe that intelligent design is science after all! And that may be the most telling admission in the entire debate.
ROTFLMAO
You’re so right, Smith, it would never occur to us that IDists would ever actually, I hate even to say the word, LIE about what science is. Let’s see, we’ve got a movie coming out that specifically whines about the expulsion of “good ideas” from science, when they’re actually referring to one of the worst versions of pseudoscience there is, ID. But we would never guess that this “academic freedom” bill could be, heaven forfend, dishonest, yet another attempt to bypass the vetting methods of science that for many products are required to be used prior to selling them to gullible customers.
Then again, what’s the big deal, eh? I mean, so what if customers are protected from untested products, it’s not like our paying to teach children pseudoscientific nonsense is of any real consequence. What you give your dog has to be vetted by science, but the lies of the IDists don’t have to be. I’m so glad you people care about using science to protect dogs, while you demand that it not be used to protect children from being lied to by your government.
And oh yeah, we’re so bloody scared that ID is science, despite the fact that they’ve never once supplied us with legitimate evidence for it. Pseudoscience scares us, liars for Jesus manipulating the political process do not.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Oh, I looked again at what you wrote, Smith, and realized that’s the DI’s BS. Nevermind that I addressed you, just understand it as being aimed at the DI’s dishonesty.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
That’s what I thought at first too …
Don’t forget to use those “quotation marks” !!
Or colons, or blockquotes.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Sorry Guys,
I am a FCS board member and I was one of the 10 who spoke in favor of the new standards in Tallahassee.No offence taken,my bad.
Ishtar, Heavens Gate, Battlefield Earth, or Plan 9 From Outerspace.
Not sure which one “Expelled” is going to bump.
Aha, an opening without drifting too far OT. Glen Davidson – how do you create that type of blockquote you used in your entry a little above? Is it Typepad? I’m new at this and have learned some HTML code, but of course it’s cumbersome. I”m trying to find a basic, free program just for posting responses, not to create a blog. Thanks
I simply used “blockquote” bracketed by chevrons, like you used “i” or “em” bracketed by chevrons to italicize the word “Thanks.”
I don’t know much about Typepad, xml, and the like, so I can’t say where it comes from. I’d guess that it’s simply html. I mainly know that it works on a whole lot of blogs and forums, the “scienceblogs.com” group, Expelled‘s blog, PT, here, Dan Whipple’s blog, and many more. I wasn’t sure if it would work here at first, because I wasn’t able to preview it before submitting, but went with it anyhow, and obviously it did work.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Check out PZs page looks like Casey Luskin let the cat outta the bag. It religion dummy!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/backtracking_in_florida.php
The Tallahassee Democrat gave some good explanations for the low attendance: competing events, the prohibition on discussing the movie, and reluctance to violate the spirit of the sunshine laws.
By opposing the “teach the controversy” principle, Darwinists are not only claiming that there are no reasonable scientific criticisms of Darwinism now, but are also claiming that reasonable scientific criticisms are not going to be discovered in the future.
Also, there is a “contrived dualism” where there are only two alternatives, Darwinism and Intelligent Design. However, there are several non-ID scientific (or pseudoscientific) criticisms of Darwinism. One non-ID criticism concerns the co-evolution of total co-dependence — e.g., the co-dependence of bees and flowering plants. In such co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.
Mr. Fafarman,
Just because the exact mechanism of coevolution has not yet been sorted out for the bee/flower interdependence does not mean that evolution does not happen. You might as well argue that a sailboat cannot float because when a brass cleat is removed and thrown in the water, it sinks like a stone.
TalkOrigins has a reasoned response to the bee/flower question here.
I will repeat the request I have seen made (and ignored) so many times before: what scientific alternative explanation would you propose for the bee/flower conundrum if evolution is not able to account for it?
And, please, no more arguments that we don’t know what will be discovered in the future. This is hardly grounds for throwing out the facts and reality of what we already know.
Sorry, poor html skills. Try this.
Cope —
Your Talkorigins reference says,
–“Once there were both bees and flowers, both evolved in response to the other. Bees found flowers a food source, while flowers hit on the strategy of using bees to pollinate themselves. Eventually these strategies replaced previous strategies, resulting in a system that appears “in harmony”.”–
This is the kind of vague, arm-waving explanation I am talking about. It does not address the issue I raised, that issue being that in the co-evolution of total co-dependence, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., land, water, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. When corresponding co-dependents traits in both organisms are fatal in such absence, co-evolution by means of random mutation is virtually impossible, and even when the co-dependent traits are not fatal or harmful in such absence, the appearance of only one of the corresponding co-dependent traits would be of no benefit in natural selection. Also, there may be irreducibly complex multiple sets of pairs of corresponding traits involving multiple organs — for example, a bee must not only be able to digest nectar but must also be able to find the flowers.
–“I will repeat the request I have seen made (and ignored) so many times before: what scientific alternative explanation would you propose for the bee/flower conundrum if evolution is not able to account for it? “–
There is no rule that says that a scientific theory may not be criticized unless a plausible alternative theory is presented at the same time. When Thomas Edison was accused of not making progress in his efforts to create a practical electric light, he answered, “I’ve made a lot of progress — I now know lots of things that won’t work.”
–“And, please, no more arguments that we don’t know what will be discovered in the future. This is hardly grounds for throwing out the facts and reality of what we already know. “–
I have not proposed throwing out anything (yet) — I am just saying that we should be open to new ideas.
Yes, but what new ideas? Should we have thousands of different teachers decide ? Should these new ideas not be IN the standards.
We KNOW that the standards , as written, are as good as they are going to get. TODAY!
That doesn’t mean that when new scientific evidence is found that it won’t be written into the standards. Just that it will have to wait until the standards are updated.
Larry, how can you use the advances made by science to say how bad science is? Thats just complete bullschitt. You don’t suppose that the real reason turn out was so low was that no one wanted to see that dreck do you? C’mon man! They HAD to PAY people to go see this crappy excuse for a movie.
Oh the irony! Expelled says that you cannot challenge science yet the people behind Expelled don’t allow for any chance of critique. Interesting.
Open questions in science that are understandable by these students can be vetted by the standards writers and included. Such vetting is critical to the integrity of the science curriculum.
———————————————————
What does this mean?
There is an Oklahoma bill in work that some claim will demand that a student can answer “6000” years for the age of the Earth on an exam without having it marked wrong by the teacher. Is that the intention of this section of the Florida bill? Boy, it sure looks like it to me.
S.Scott Says:
–“We KNOW that the standards , as written, are as good as they are going to get. TODAY! “–
I still think that they should take out that statement about evolution being “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” That simply isn’t true.
firemancarl Says:
–“Larry, how can you use the advances made by science to say how bad science is?”–
How did I do that?
–“You don’t suppose that the real reason turn out was so low was that no one wanted to see that dreck do you? “–
There were several reasons, and we don’t know the importance of each. I think that if the movie turns out to be a hit, a lot of legislators will want to see it eventually.
MelM Says:
March 16th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Thanks for that MelM. I would guess what it means is, no work for the teacher to grade the exams. The kids take the finished exams home and have their parents grade them, based upon their individual beliefs. No problem there.
You can view that entire Oklahoma bill here.
SECTION 4. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 27-104 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work.
DaveB,
I’ve read the Oklahoma bill; it contains other ominous provisions
The section of the Florida bill I quoted and the section from the Oklahoma bill you quoted look essentially the same to me. Could these bills be worded to leave the implementation up to the individual schools or districts? One could interpret it innocuously while another could go whole hog.
Here is where I was getting the worst case interpretation: Bill promotes school religion at expense of education Dave McNeely Special to The Sun
http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_067125346.html
Larry,
I can say with almost 100% certainty that the movie will not be a hit.
Larry, you said
“I still think that they should take out that statement about evolution being “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.†That simply isn’t true.”
And I replied
–â€Larry, how can you use the advances made by science to say how bad science is?â€â€“
How did I do that?, thats how you did it Larry. Evolution IS the fundamental concept underlying all biology.
–“Evolution IS the fundamental concept underlying all biology. “–
How can that be when so many students don’t even study evolution in high school biology? That statement is just a calculated insult against those who question evolution.
Larry, I’m beginning to think that you don’t understand what biology is. Now forgive me, I’m not trying to be a “smarty pants” – I don’t even know that much about science, but biology is the study of life.
What do you learn about in biology class that is not alive?
Please give me an example of something that has not evolved.
Again, I am not trying to be smart – I am just trying to understand what you are talking about.
The problem Larry is that we don’t TEACH ENOUGH BIOLOGY in schools. Unfortunately, students get the briefest of instruction in evoltuionary biology and then the class moves on. It is really obvious how bad science education is, or more accurately, lacking. For the best example of this, look at how many fundies get the scientific definition of “theory” wrong.
We also don’t teach gravity or quantum physics in high school either.