Are the fish biting?

We’ve been aware that those in support of the creationism bills (so-called “academic freedom” bills) have been fishing for Florida teachers who feel they’ve been persecuted in some way for teaching information contrary to evolution. The Florida Family Policy Counsel first put out this call in late March.

One of their most vocal fishermen, David Brackin, is casting his line where he thinks he’ll find the most bites: InJesus.com and the Christian Education Association International.  Once again, tell me how these bills have nothing to do with religion.

Over the past month I’ve been able to present to the Florida Department of Education why I think the new standards need to be changed and I’ve met personally with Florida Senate Majority Leader Daniel Webster, Florida House of Representatives Speaker Marco Rubio, and several other legislators about an Academic Freedom bill. Each of the legislators said that my testimony as a teacher that has been confronted about teaching the weaknesses in the theory of evolution is critical to the passing of the bill and that we need to hear from more teachers with that experience. The next hearing on this bill will be the week of April seventh.

Brackin, a teacher at Chain of Lakes Middle School, claims to have been discriminated against for teaching evolution’s weaknesses. So far we haven’t heard any specifics concerning Brackin’s own tale of woe. What supposed “weaknesses” did he try to teach in his classroom? How did word of this get to his assistant principal? Did someone complain, or was Brackin himself very vocal in his views, or is there some other explanation? What made the assistant principal think Brackin was mixing religion into the science classroom? In what way does his current principal “support academic freedom”? What is Brackin currently teaching in his classroom? Keep in mind that Brackin is on the record as supporting intelligent design.

This is not an attempt to persecute Brackin for his views, which he is welcome to. However, there are many questions that need to be answered if he wants to continue to stand as an example of discrimination. His version of past events need to be explained in more detail and independently verified. His own statements also raise questions as to whether he is teaching the approved and appropriate curriculum right now.

It would be incredibly irresponsible of Florida’s legislators to just accept his story, or the stories of anyone else reeled in, at face value.

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in "Academic Freedom" bills '08. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Are the fish biting?

  1. Once again, tell me how these bills have nothing to do with religion.

    See section 7.

  2. PC-Bash says:

    Wallace –

    Storms and her ilk claim that this bill will allow other “scientific theories” to be presented alongside evolution. What “scientific theories” do you think they’re talking about here?

    If you say ID, then we are back to religion, as ID is not even a valid scientific hypothesis (it requires faith in a theistic intelligent designer). What “theories” do they mean?

  3. James F says:

    PC-Bash,

    Don’t hold your breath. 😉 I’ve had a brief online dialogue with Kevin Wirth at Pharyngula over the issue of where the research is to support an alternative “theory” to evolution. We’ve agreed on the ground rules that peer-reviewed literature reviews don’t count, and he has yet to produce anything. I’m really curious to see what, if anything, he comes up with.

    Valid scientific theories aren’t inhibited by this standards, period. Pseudoscience based on the views of religious fundamentalists, well, the First Amendment takes care of that, for starters.

  4. Karl says:

    There needs to be an investigation on how and why Brackin was “disciplined” for teaching so-called “weaknesses” of evolution. I’m sure we all suspect just exactly what those “weaknesses” are, but still, Chain of Lakes Middle School officials should be interviewed to bring out all the details that Brackin is withholding and hopefully topple this straw platform that the religious conservatives are trying to rally behind. Anyone with journalism connections wanna give this angle a try?

  5. island says:

    ID isn’t an alternative theory to evolutionary theory. If anything, ID *would* be a “complimentary theory” to evolutionary theory, and I say “would”, because ID requires an unfounded leap of faith that isn’t warrented by the evidence that IDists like to wave around.

    But I’m trying to get a handle on this as an agnostic atheist who would like to see the weaknesses of evolutionary theory investigated in an honest and scientific manner that isn’t influenced by the pre-existing barriers the stupid religious debate imposes that cause people to shoot their own selves and science in the foot.

    I’d like to know where Storms said that other scientific theories could be presented along side of evolutionary theory, since the wording that I’ve seen in the standards and the bill only and specifically talks about “scientific information”, which excludes ID and creationism from any discussion.

    I’m trying to find out what justification people have for fighting the bill, since the standards strictly constrain teachers to “scientific information”, which can’t include any of the common “creationist’s facts” that science has deemed to be non-science.

    I realize that the DI is directly behind this, but it appears to me that they are saying all the right things, so I’m trying to find out what jusifiies your stand, Brandon. I mean, I’d hate to see yet another case where you guys automatically reject something that actually makes evolutionary theory stronger, like you did when they tagged the science standard with the term “scientific theory”, which is the highest possible compliment that you could possibly pay to evolutionary theory… speaking of things like cutting your noses off to spite your faces.

    The theory of relativity is constantly tested for weaknesses to degrees of accuracy that would make your freaking head spin, and this only makes it the greatest theory to hit science since Newton’s theory failed to account for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury.

    So I’d like to know what reasons that you have why the creationists are not correct to ask… ‘what are you afraid of?’… ?

    How can they get ID into the classroom from any of what has occurred or been proposed that you guys HATE so much?

  6. Karl says:

    The fact of the matter is, the conservative politicians behind the bill have already demonstrated that they are planning to take extreme liberties with the “scientific alternatives” portion of the bill.

    Ronda Storms has already been quoted as stating that under this bill, if a majority of students in a science class choose to disregard evolution and believe in intelligent design by their own theological convictions, then the science teacher would be legally protected to go ahead and teach intelligent design as part of the curriculum.

    It’s not so much about the concept of an academic freedom bill that we are trying to fight, but more of the loopholes that the religious conservatives and other fundamentalists are planning to exploit by playing fast and loose with the legal definitions.

  7. James F says:

    We’re just doing our part to foster the Global Darwinist Conspiracyâ„¢, nothing to see here. 🙄

  8. island says:

    So, Karl’s answer is paranoia, and James F thinks that sarcasm is satisfactory. That’s what I thought.

  9. James F says:

    Students, this is a textbook case of the following:

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concern_troll

  10. island says:

    I’m no troll, but James F is obviously a lying loser.

    Got anything substatial…. anybody?

    Something besides BS copouts and lies that is?

  11. JLO says:

    Karl’s answer is not paranoia, it’s spot on. And James F may be sarcastic, but at least he’s a good read.

    Island, you called James F a lying loser, but you lied in the very same sentence when you said, “I’m no troll…” Got some news for you – you fit the description perfectly.

  12. island says:

    JLQ, I am not a troll by the very definition that the insulting moron gave, and Karl’s paranoia does not establish that the IDists can get their game past the ***letter of the law***, so try again without the insults that accmplish nothing.

  13. island says:

    JLO, I mean… sorry.

  14. Karl says:

    So, Mr. Troll, would I be right calling you paranoid if you were to start locking your doors and windows after I get up in your face telling you that I’m gonna break into your house and steal your stuff?

  15. firemancarl says:

    Oh, I get it.

    Island,

    Olde chum. Do you know you’re just rehashing old IDiot arguments. Puh-leeze, next time they send you over, have something new.

  16. S.Scott says:

    island – The Florida Senate “analysis statement”.

    It states that the bill is “Unnecessary and may have unintended consequences” –

    and “it is silent on who defines the objectivity of the scientific information presented”.

  17. island says:

    Okay, unnecesary can be a matter of biased opinion, but I thought that they had made clear that only material passes scientific peer review is allowed?… or that last point of yours is a doozie that would make me change my mind.

    You are the first to recognize that I made no false or misleading statements.

    Thank you

  18. PC-Bash says:

    but I thought that they had made clear that only material passes scientific peer review is allowed?

    That wasn’t in the version of the bill I read. It mentioned nothing about peer review. Furthermore, including the term “peer review” would be loaded. Reviewed by whose standards? IDiots like to claim that they have peer reviewed papers — literature reviewed by editors, or a couple of science papers reviewed by non-scientists. So, “peer review” itself would be a loophole large enough to drive a Mack through.

    There are no valid scientific theories that are at odds with evolution. There may be scientific theories or conjectures that question minor details, but nothing that would claim that evolution is not what lead to the origin of species. The IDiots who are pushing for this bill want to teach that evolution is deeply flawed, they want to teach concepts like irreducible complexity and scripture as fact, when there is no evidence to back up either. If that is “academic freedom”, then I pity the poor students who will be subject to this creationist swill.

  19. island says:

    The term, “peer review” can only include huge holes if teachers are allowed to teach fringe criticisms of some of the mechanisms of the theory, but they will be crossing legal lines that will put them in jeopardy if they try to teach“creationist’s facts”, like, “irreducible complexity” that science has deemed to be non-science. as I’ve already noted.

    It would be disaterous if IDists were allowed a free and protected reign to dump creationist facts on our kids, but that’s the part that I don’t see as happening without breaking the law.

  20. S.Scott says:

    @ island – Also from the senate analysis –

    “Taken as a whole, the science standards encourage teachers and students to discuss the full range of scientific evidence related to all science, including evolution”

    This is why the State BoE rejected the “Academic Freedom” proposal in the first place. It is redundant (but only on the surface)

    Go here and scroll to bottom of the page to see the full analysis

    http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Year=2008&billnum=2692

  21. island says:

    lol… well, the redundancy certainly is not necessary, so it looks like teachers are already free and encouraged to discuss valid scientific criticisms of the theory, and the bill is, therefore, bogus creationist crap.

    Gotcha, and thanks, but I’d keep that part of the senate analysis in my back pocket if Iwere a teacher, since “taken as a whole” is definitiely a matter of interpretation that would not have been made if not for the bogus creationist crap.

  22. Karl says:

    The definition of “peer reviewed” differs greatly between the Discovery Institute and the Scientific community in general. Back in Dover v. Kitzmiller, the DI tried to pass several “research papers” supporting ID as being “peer reviewed and peer edited,” most notably, the works of Micheal Behe, but Behe himself was ultimately forced to retract these claims under cross-examination. The Discovery Institute has an established track record for trying to pass off pro-ID material as being scientifically peer reviewed with complete disregard to the actual peer-review requirements and guidelines.

    Given this , the mention of of scientific peer-review in this academic bill is a moot point at most. Call me paranoid for saying that the DI will again try to pass off more ID material as “peer reviewed” but they have in the past, and are coincidentally promoting this bill. To reiterate, the most alarming thing about this bill, is that the author, Ronda Storms, has stated that under certain conditions, the teaching of ID would be allowed and legally protected under the provisions of this bill.

  23. island says:

    I’d call you paranoid for believing that they could get away with any of those obvious violations, which is highly symptomatic of a very non-scientific problem that plauges this subject. Firemancarl’s statement above is an even more clear example, since he automatically assumes that every word out of an IDists mouth is wrong because he knows their ultimate intention. Sorry, that ain’t the way that science works, kids.

    Storms would have to produce a very old alien spaceship from Venus with the blueprints for humans hanging on their drawing board, before “certain conditions” could be met that make it peer reviewable scientific information. Regardless of what Bill Dembski and company might like to try to get away with, it ain’t gonna happen under the guise of “peer review”, because you guys will eat them alive.

  24. PC-Bash says:

    since he automatically assumes that every word out of an IDists mouth is wrong because he knows their ultimate intention.

    No, they are fairly good at spinning some truth into their lies to make them more palpable to the general public.

    Storms would have to produce a very old alien spaceship from Venus with the blueprints for humans hanging on their drawing board, before “certain conditions” could be met that make it peer reviewable scientific information.

    Even that would beg the question, “Where did those aliens come from?”

    Regardless of what Bill Dembski and company might like to try to get away with, it ain’t gonna happen under the guise of “peer review”

    Actually, Dembski is rather famous for trying to pass off papers as “peer reviewed” — by philosophers, mathematicians, literary agents, etc… never by scientists.

  25. PC-Bash says:

    He’s also famous for stealing videos and dubbing them with creationist soundtracks.

    http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/12/discovery-institute-dembski-copyright.html

  26. PC-Bash says:

    …because you guys will eat them alive.

    It doesn’t matter what people here would do. What matters is what the politicians do. That’s why DI is trying desperately to make themselves look legitimate, and are working hard on projects like Expelled to “win the hearts and minds” of the general public. They know they can’t survive in the science community, which is why they are trying to jam their propaganda down people’s throats through legislation.

  27. island says:

    Even that would beg the question, “Where did those aliens come from?”

    Yes, that’s the next most logical sequence of questioning that a real scientist would follow. You’re obviously stuck in a mode for debating people who believe in god if you’re trying to use that junk on me… lol. I would expect a natural solution to every plausible scietific scenario. Big diff… lol

    Actually, Dembski is rather famous for trying to pass off papers as “peer reviewed” — by philosophers, mathematicians, literary agents, etc… never by scientists.

    And never through the peer review proces, which is still the only real point.

    No, they are fairly good at spinning some truth into their lies to make them more palpable to the general public.

    And sometimes it is only their unfounded leap of faith to conclude that evidence that can mean that we are not here by accident can be indicitive of a supernatural being… that puts them outside of science.

  28. island says:

    It doesn’t matter what people here would do.

    No kidding? Really?… huh, I never would have guessed… 😉

  29. Karl says:

    I never said that I would think they would get away with it. In fact, I’m betting they won’t. If they do try, there will no doubt be a legal challenge issued, and a great deal of precedent that will rule in favor of the scientific community. However, the goal of DI et al is not always the surreptitious indoctrination of children to their theological viewpoints. Things like lawsuits generate publicity, sympathy, and most importantly, political capital for DI-backed politicians with the right demographic of constituents. Keep in mind that in the end, all of this has been, and will be orchestrated at taxpayer expense.

  30. S.Scott says:

    @island – Here is the “Body of Knowledge” from the science standards “Nature of Science” …

    BODY OF KNOWLEDGE: Nature of Science
    Standard: The Practice of Science –
    A: Scientific inquiry is a multifaceted activity; The processes of science include the formulation of scientifically investigable questions, construction of investigations into those questions, the collection of appropriate data, the evaluation of the meaning of those data, and the communication of this evaluation.

    B: The processes of science frequently do not correspond to the traditional portrayal of “the scientific method.”

    C: Scientific argumentation is a necessary part of scientific inquiry and plays an important role in the generation and validation of scientific knowledge.

    D: Scientific knowledge is based on observation and inference; it is important to recognize that these are very different things. Not only does science require creativity in its methods and processes, but also in its questions and explanations.

    Date Adopted or Revised: 02/08
    Status: State Board Approved

    Like I said – redundant .

  31. S.Scott says:

    Sorry – I wanted to give you that link as well …

    http://www.floridastandards.org/FlStandardSearch.aspx

  32. S.Scott says:

    @island

    And never through the peer review proces, which is still the only real point.

    The concern is that teachers will be able to say something has been peer reviewed even if the peer he/ she is referring to is a neighbor!

    The bill is not specific enough. It does not define “peer review” and opens the door to abuse of the science standards. And gives protection to teachers that might take liberties with the standards if the bill were to pass.

  33. firemancarl says:

    Firemancarl’s statement above is an even more clear example, since he automatically assumes that every word out of an IDists mouth is wrong because he knows their ultimate intention. Sorry, that ain’t the way that science works, kids.

    Huh? Actually, Island, it is wrong. The IDiot camp has not advanced one single solitary scientific claim for their position. In fact, it is more of the ‘god of the gaps’ argument, either that or an arguement from personal incredulity. The point being, that there is NO testifiable scientific data to support any cliams made by IDiots. Further more, there is ( so far ) no such thing as “irreducible complexity”. All previous attempts to show this have failed, and failed miserably

Comments are closed.