Amendment proposed to Senate Bill

UPDATE: Senator Storms filed an amendment to her deceptively-named “academic freedom” bill today. She is asking that it be changed to match Rep. Hays’ House version.

This turn of events now dictates that we focus all our efforts on exposing so-called “critical analysis” for what it is. That’s hard. Those who know what’s up will deceitfully profess that science is all about critical analysis. They’re essentially trying to turn science on its head and use a strength of the scientific process against itself. Those who don’t know what’s up will very likely swallow that smelly crap whole. I think this quote puts things in great perspective:

It’s [intelligent design] still a religious assertion, and not a scientific one. It doesn’t stand up to even the most rudimentary evidential scrutiny, and while it’s always important to ask questions and allow for healthy debate, no matter the topic, at some point a line has to be drawn separating fact from fiction — or distraction. The truth is important because it’s the yardstick by which we measure our reality, and Ben Stein — or anyone else — trying to pass off spectacular whimsy as legitimate fact is, yes, damaging. Not everything can be up for discussion, no matter how large a segment of the population might believe otherwise.

Also, if these bills are not about religion, then why are so many folks making a big deal out of the Christian angle?

10 Responses to “Amendment proposed to Senate Bill”

  1. James F Says:

    What nonsense. Singling out evolution again, when critical analysis is already specified for science in general in the state standards. Useless, no secular purpose. Give it up, Sen. Storms!

  2. Green Earth Says:

    Not only is it annoying that these people don’t “believe” in science/evolution with all of its tests and mounds of evidence- the whole thing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    As this update mentions- if it’s not about religion (which, CLEARLY IT IS) why is it only xtians pushing for it to pass?

    (Please note- this is NOT a religious attack on Christians, just reiterating the facts)

  3. Captdave Says:

    G.E.

    Thank you for that disclaimer, a little gun shy now are we?

    :mrgreen:

  4. Wesley R. Elsberry Says:

    “Critical analysis” has a documented history of misuse by religious antievolution advocates. It was the label used in the “Santorum amendment”. It was the label used in Ohio from 2002 to 2006. It has been the label proposed in numerous other venues by the Discovery Institute. The discovery process in a court case will tie all of this together. “Critical analysis” will go down, hard, whenever they hand some teacher Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” and Wells’ “Icons of Evolution” as arguments to teach. They still just want to open the door for the same tired, bogus, religious antievolution arguments that they’ve always taught.

    I brought this up at the press conference on the 14th.

  5. S.Scott Says:

    Redundant and unnecessary.

    The amendment reads :

    A bill to be entitled
    29
    An act relating to evolutionary theory; amending s.
    30
    1003.42; requiring public school instruction in, and the
    31
    critical analysis of, the scientific theory of evolution;
    32
    providing an effective date.

    4/22/2008 3:49:00 PM

    The standards already provide for inquisition and arguement. Read for yourself …

    Benchmark Number: SC.912.N.1.3
    Benchmark Description: Recognize that the strength or usefulness of a scientific claim is evaluated through scientific argumentation, which depends on critical and logical thinking, and the active consideration of alternative scientific explanations to explain the data presented.
    Subject Area: Science
    Grade Level: 912
    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.

    There is no point to this bill other than to single out evolution.

  6. Green Earth Says:

    Captdave-
    I don’t want to come off as someone that hates religion (I’m pastafarian). My dad’s family is Christian. They (and many others) have no problem with evolution and see no reason for conflict. I know that it’s the really right wing religious fundies that are behind this, maybe I should use that from now on instead of Christian as it is a very broad description. RWRF, or just IDiots.

    I recognize your name, are you an FSM follower too?

  7. Paulr Says:

    What about critical analysis of gravity? From “The Onion” way back in 2005…

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

    Enjoy!

  8. firemancarl Says:

    Hey, look at this. It is the guide for teaching ID which really is your daddys creationism!

    http://pigeonchess.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/expelleds-intelligent-design-theory-this-is-your-daddys-creationism-part-i/

  9. Grafixer Says:

    To put this in more accurate terms, it is the religious “extremists” that are pushing this bill. The only anti-evolution and pro-bill(s) blogs appear on religious extremist websites – where they also are proponents of creationism (sometimes masked as intelligent design). The only people screaming about the need for evolution academic freeDUMB are also religious extremists, and belong to the same organizations that have those creationism-pushing sites. As with all extremists throughout history, they will do anything to push their agenda. Like Storms’ side-stepping in the Senate, they will never tell the truth about their intent. It is the Discovery Institute’s wedge plan – first the schools, then our way of life. Ultimately, our democracy is the target (theocracy), and the Florida Senate and Legislature just don’t see it coming.

  10. Jonathan Smith Says:

    Graf you are 100% on the money, For Storms and company, prevaricating for your religious convictions seems to be the required moral path to self righteousness.