This Tampa Bay 10 story says that one of the “academic freedom” bills is supposed to be considered later this week.
On Monday, the math and science writers submitted their opposition to Storm’s proposal. In it they say, “the ‘Academic Freedom Act’ is a subterfuge for injecting the religious beliefs held by some into the science classroom.”
“Stick to the science. We have great science standards that the State Board of Education has adopted… it’s time to move on and teach them,†said Paul Cottle, FSU Professor and math and science writer.
“I guess they haven’t read the bill, because the bill specifically says it doesn’t promote religious dogma, any religious perspective. It does not promote creative/creation science and it also does not promote intelligent design,†said Senator Storms.
The “American Freedom Act†is supposed to be heard in a committee for the first time later this week.
I don’t know what this American Freedom Act is. I’m guessing that the reporter just screwed up the name. And, yes, Senator Storms, we have read the bill, but even more than that, we know where it came from and the long, long history behind it. You can’t cover up that history; that history is all about one specific, narrow view of religion.
And what IDists say is always true.
Btw, dimwit, why does your “concern for academic freedom” only involve matters which go against your precious dogmas? Doesn’t it even occur to you to pretend to be interested in academic freedom in general?
Of course if you did that you’d likely end up with a bill like the one in Oklahoma, which would only test student sincerity (or ability to fake that sincerity), rather than any type of knowledge. You know that you can’t apply your “academic freedom” to the entire curricula, since your schools would become a joke in every subject, not just in biology. But you still have to trash biology and allow your pseudosciences in for the sake of your religion, so you’re willing to look as hypocritical as you are with respect to “academic freedom.”
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Of course Glen. How else can they get their brand of shite into the schools. What really surprises me is that no one seems to stand up and say “Wait a minute” , reps and senators I mean. Are they that afriad of being labled “anti religious” that they will bow to this crapola?
It’s all really very simple really, …
“Sen. Storms, Rep. Hays,
Will you please name a scientific theory that should be protected by the ‘Academic Freedom’ bill that you propose, that is not already covered in the standards that have been approved?”
I’m betting they’re gonna mention ID in whatever answer they give. Storms mentioned it earlier regarding the ridiculous notion of letting the student decide what to be taught in a biology class. I’ve seen daycares with stricter standards. Someone should call Storms out on the fact that although her bill is worded to not specifically promote creationism/ID/religion, she had implied that it does allow for it to happen if a class of students/teachers decide to when quoted earlier This makes the whole state science standard worthless since it can be disregarded on a class-by-class basis.
On another note, does anyone know if DI is cooking up any new (creationism disguised) theories in their irrational war on evolution? I think we are up to irreducible complexity now but my info may be outdated since I don’t spend money or a lot of time reading all of their latest religious propaganda….
firemancarl, I know of only one U.S. House or Senate member who admits to being an atheist, Pete Stark, of California. It’s the kiss of death for a politician. I’m sure they all feel obliged to wear religion on their sleeves in order to ward off any doubt. I throw up every time I hear the Democratic Party candidates blather ‘God bless America’ or ‘I’m a devout Christian’. It’s expected from the Republicans, it’s just part of their cartoonishness.
Karl, I dunno. Does anyone know the DI’s true agenda? Will they be content to just pervert our public school science classrooms or do they want to subvert the whole establishment clause of the First Amendment?
IMO this bill is needed because teachers and students who want to criticize evolution in class have been intimidated by the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision of that stupid federal judge in Pennsylvania who showed extreme prejudice against criticisms of evolution by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not “true” religions. He said,
“. . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.”
— from http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html
Also, backers of this academic freedom bill who are saying that the bill does not authorize discussion of intelligent design are being disingenuous. ID is now by far the best-known scientific (or pseudoscientific, to some) criticism of evolution and many people even have the mistaken idea that it is the only scientific criticism of evolution.
Also, they should at least get rid of that statement in the Florida science standards that says that evolution is “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.” That just isn’t true.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
-Theodosius Dobzhansky
And mind you, he was arguing in favor of theistic evolution. I’ll take the professional view of a major figure in biology any day of the week over that of a non-scientist.
Larry, at least you recognize that the Academic Freedom bill is a scam.
Now Larry, you just to realize that there is scientific merit to ID. None what so ever. They have come up with exactly squat to advance their case and instead quote mine the living shite outta what real scientists write. Again Larry, just because high schoolers don’t get enough of an in depth education about evolution does not mean that evolution is not the under lying principal. Remember, they don’t get much on gravity wither.
I mean EITHER, my bad.
Ah, so writers with extrasensory perception are against the bill.
Great argument!
Is it extrasensory perception when a group of business owners oppose a bill to prohibit metal security bars across storefront glass windows which JUST happens to be sponsored by thieves, burglars, and other criminals?
S.Scott Says:
–“Larry, at least you recognize that the Academic Freedom bill is a scam.”–
Only in regard to the claim that the bill does not cover Intelligent Design.
James F Says:
–“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
-Theodosius Dobzhansky “–
That is just one scientist’s opinion, and he might have been deliberately exaggerating.
Larry,
The problem is, it’s not just one scientist’s opinion. The opinion of even a luminary such as Dobzhansky would be suspect if few others shared it. It’s the prevailing view, however, and that’s why the framers of the standards chose it when deciding what was important to include in the science curriculum. What would you, as a non-biologist, say is the fundamental concept underlying all biology? Would you be as adamant if a non-evolutionary concept was chosen by the framers?
Finally, since we’re engaged in this dialogue, I would like to pose the following question to you, at the risk of repeating a survey:
The “creation science” and “intelligent design†movements have never succeeded in publishing a peer-reviewed research paper in any of the journals indexed at the National Library of Medicine, which currently encompasses over SEVENTEEN MILLION citations. Amongst these citations the theory of evolution, on the other hand, has never been disproved. NLM covers all branches of the life sciences, and needless to say a paper providing evidence against evolution would receive a huge amount of attention. So what’s the problem? There are two possibilities:
1. Creationism/ID is based on religious belief and supernatural causation, not science.
2. A concerted worldwide effort by research scientists, scientific journal editors, educators, and the media has unjustly prevented a single valid creationism/ID manuscript from being published.
I would also like to ask Larry, why he thinks ID is science?
I don’t think Larry himself knows why he thinks ID is a science. So far, the only responses he’s given (mostly when I’m trolling his blog) is to scream CENSORSHIP ARGH!!!! (usually with a rant against wikipedia), curse Judge Jones from Dover v. Kitzmiller, bring up “coevolution” in an out-of-context way, or mention something about aliens.
I would just like to see some proof that ID is science! That’s not too much to ask, is it?
Let’s see it! Anyone, anyone. Bueller? Bueller?
Let’s see … the” irreduceably (sp?) complex” bacterial flagellum was reduced. (By scientists, no less – That must have hurt)
That seemed to be the only “sciency” thing they had going for them and now it’s gone.
So I don’t think it’s too much to ask, is it?
Now, I must say that I will not count anything that says “evolution can’t prove it, so it must be true”.
No scientist has ever claimed to know everything. They are always on a quest for knowledge. They come up with ideas, and then they TEST their ideas. And then they test it again, and again, and again, and again, …
What can the IDer’s give science to test, Larry?