(Update: The Gradebook blog has a better explanation of what is going on. Essentially, this is a proposed amendment that’s not likely to get any traction.)
ALERT: The deceptively-named “academic freedom” bill in the Senate has taken one hell of a new twist. It’s been amended in a big way. Just look at the new title:
“Evolution and Healthy Teens Academic Freedom Act.”
See for yourself here. Evolution and sex education are suddenly lumped in together.
Wow. I read this as a “poison pill.” The conservatives will have trouble with the agitators if they vote so emphatically to protect sex education. It also means the House-Senate committee will have a real headache on their hands. Seems like the intent is to insure it dies even if it passes both chambers.
I’m lost for words, what does this mean?????
Wow, first they deny evolution and now AIDS. I agree Walter, it looks like this is a way to kill the bill before it even gets off the ground. Not only will the fundies have to worry about us evilutionists, but you know all of those left wing liberals (TM) will be all over this bill as well.
Oh, I know Brandon, we cannot have sex unless we evolve????
The Legislature finds that current law does not
40
expressly protect the right of teachers to objectively present
41
scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific
42
views regarding chemical and biological evolution and medically
43
accurate information regarding family planning, pregnancy or
44
sexually transmitted infections, including HIV and AIDS. The
45
Legislature finds that in many instances educators have
46
experienced or feared discipline, discrimination, or other
47
adverse consequences as a result of presenting the full range of
48
scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution and
49
medically accurate information regarding family planning,
50
pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, including HIV and
51
AIDS. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not
52
expressly protect students from discrimination due to their
53
positions or views regarding biological or chemical evolution and
54
their questioning regarding medically accurate information
55
regarding family planning, pregnancy or sexually transmitted
56
infections, including HIV and AIDS. The Legislature finds that
57
the topic of biological and chemical evolution and comprehensive
58
sexual education have generated intense controversy about the
59
rights of teachers and students to hold differing views on those
60
subjects. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature that this
61
section expressly protect those rights.
If that ever passed, it will make Florida the laughing stock of the world. Basically, it is a “Deference to Fundamentalist Christian Beliefs” bill.
I hope Walter is right about the intent.
(4) Every public school teacher in the state’s K-12 school
63
system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to
64
objectively present:
65
(a) Scientific information relevant to the full range of
66
scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in
67
connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding
68
chemical or biological evolution; and
69
(b) Comprehensive sexual education that is medically
70
accurate, factual, and age appropriate in connection with
71
teaching any prescribed abstinence-only curriculum regarding
72
human sexuality.
This is the part that interests me. The only views possible are those that really are scientific views held by, gulp scientists!
OK, we need to find out who got the bill changed and when it dies, send them a nice fruit basket. No, not Larry.
From what I have heard I don’t think it has been amended. I think it is a proposed amendment. And if I’m right, I’m guessing that it has a snowball’s chance in hell, given that it’s proposed by Democrats
I can hear it now…
“But WAIT! Our kids are supposed to learn about that stuff at home! Not at school!”
If anything, Sen. Deutch and Sen. Rich will get (some) Senators to think about the amendment. This took some thought – I officially have a higher opinion of at least two of Florida’s senators (and my opinion of Deutch was already high). It’s like FSM, but much more subtle.
PLAY BALL!!
I an SUUURE there is much more actual legitimate scientific materials available regarding sex ed. than of the other type -seeing as THERE ISN’T ANY!!
This is glorious! Thanks for the info. I just blogged about it at my own place, giving you credit for the discovery, but I used a slightly more provocative headline: Ronda Storms’ Head Explodes! There may be some hope for Florida after all.
*whine* But we wanted our religious views imposed on the kids! No fair!
They are talking about this in session right now … you can view here –
http://streams.leg.state.fl.us/stations/MBR/UNI/stream1.asx
I think I was saying something regarding sex ed vs. “academic freedom” right on this site a few days ago.
I wonder who was reading?
Yay! I think Senator Gellar read my e mail!
Yay! I think Senator Gellar read my e mail!
Curse you evilutionist!!!!!!, oh.. wait.
Amendments were withdrawn.
Cheers
Joe Meert
OK, Now they’re talkin about compensation for wrongly convicted convicts. Any update on our baby?
Crap
Senator Gellar asked Storms’ 5 times if ID could be taught and 5 times, she evaded.
I got to watch part of the floor debate on my groovy little smartphone during lunch. Thanks for alerting us Scott.
Amazing how Storms was asked over and over and over in multiple different ways whether intelligent design could be taught in the classroom and she refused to answer. That gives you the answer right there, of course. Watching her tapdance like that was a disgusting sight.
I wish someone would ask Storms whether se agrees with ID leader Michael Behe that humans share common ancestors with other species and that life on Earth has a 3-4 billion year history.
Frank, that’s one big problem (of many, including it not being science) with ID – no consistent position!
Anyone know if they vote today?
Amendments were withdrawn.SO NOW WHAT??
At the end of the debate, the president said that the bill (without proposed amendments) would be placed on the calendar for its third reading. That means that the next time it’s on the floor is when the final vote happens. So, we just need to watch the calendar very closely to see when that third reading happens. In the meantime we need to tell all the senators what Storms ‘ intelligent design tap dance means: Dover the sequel.
Actually man was formed from the dust. Creationists believe it happenned instantly and evolutionists say it took millions of years. The only basic difference is the amount of time it took. Both believe that those things which aren’t seen made it happen. Creationists believe the “unseen†God did it – evolutionists believed in an “unseen†principle of self effort did it.
Except that you CAN see evolution.
“The only basic difference is the amount of time it took.”
…And the fact that scientists have EVIDENCE, and creationists don’t. You left that part out.
M. Bally,
Actually, evolution is not based on faith, but on evidence and observation of speciation as it is seen to this day. There is the fossil record, radiometric dating, comparative animal morphology, and comparative genetics (including chromosome sequence and endogenous retroviruses). Science is neutral to anything outside of the natural world. Where we do agree, although for different reasons, is that science and religion need not be in conflict.
Peace.
SScott, you can see evolution? actually see it take place ?
Can evolution be seen in the labratory ? I would love to see this. Please give me the site I can visit to see this. thanks
EVIDENCE:: that which tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue.
Evolutionists accept the overwhelming evidence for TOE,Creationists rely
wholly on faith,that my friend is the major difference
“Where we do agree, although for different reasons, is that science and religion need not be in conflict.” I agree
Doesn’t the scientific method say that it has to be reproduced in the lab ?
“Doesn’t the scientific method say that it has to be reproduced in the lab ?”
Actually, no. However, evolution HAS, in fact, been observed in laboratory conditions.
We need not reproduce the Sun in a lab, for example, to know how it produces heat and light.
Can evolution be seen in the labratory ? I would love to see this. Please give me the site I can visit to see this. thanks
Be careful what you ask for, for you may get it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Remember we’re here to teach, and learn.
“We don’t have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.”
-Buckaroo Banzai
😉
Actually, it has happened, I will try to find it, the irony is, it was announced by an IDiot…. stand by.
“Doesn’t the scientific method say that it has to be reproduced in the lab ?â€
It’s been addressed above, but no, the scientific method never mentions “the lab”. Researchers prefer situations where the number of variables is limited, so “labs” provide the opportunity for researchers to control many of the variables. But many areas of science cannot be “brought to the lab”, or only can utilize the lab in limited ways.
Trust me, there are many field biologists who wish they could reduce it all to a lab, but that is not possible for the type of investigation they are conducting.
In the meantime we need to tell all the senators what Storms ‘ intelligent design tap dance means: Dover the sequel.
Right,never underestimate any zealot who thinks “lying for Jesus” is the required moral pathway to self- righteousness.
M. Bally,
BACTERIA!!! Short generation time, very good specimens to study AND observe evolution.
Darn you PatrickHenry, I was salivating to see that. However; I did find the video of it. Here is a redirect, everybody:
Legislator says, ‘I think I get your point now.’
Oh, read it and weep fundies!
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/02/the_shy_fragile_face_of_id.php
‘[Gauger] was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.’
Guys you did not mention this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
For some additional information about how Ronda shamelessly ducked all questions about whether her proposed legislation would permit the teaching of Intelligent Design (i.e. creationism wearing a condom) in science class, read this article in the Miami Herald.
Has anyone asked her the obvious question: what ARE the alternative, accepted, scientific theories to evolution that school children should be taught? She must be aware of them to be pushing for them. I don’t think the NAS is aware of any? If she cannot (or will not) answer, isn’t the bill pointless?
Brian,
Trust me, I’ve asked. After much badgering, I either get no response or an admission that the “alternative” is intelligent design, which is of course not a scientific theory. Here’s a great publication from the NAS:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
(asked in a general sense, not her specifically – so far no responses from legislators, not expecting any)
Maybe this is naive (I’m just an interested curious Brit) but shouldn’t the onus be on her to prove that there are valid scientific alternatives to warrant the change in the legislation? Maybe the pro-science senators could force the issue that it is an unnecessary and bureaucratic ‘change for change sake’ – unless she can show otherwise??
You have to see this new film Expelled.
WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING:
“I recommend EXPELLED enthusiastically!”
— James C. Dobson, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board, Focus on the Family
“Four stars!”
— Ted Baehr, Editor, MovieGuide
“A powerful and riveting film. . . every open-minded person will love it.”
— Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, Founder & Chairman of American Family Association
“EXPELLED is an enormously important project.”
— Michael Medved, national radio host
“We highly recommend EXPELLED to anybody.”
— Ken Smitherman, President, Association of Christian Schools Int’l
“SEE THIS FILM, bring your friends and bring your church.”
— Lee Strobel, Author, Case for a Creator
“See EXPELLED and you’ll understand why they want to censor those who question their dogmas.”
— Dr. Richard Land, Southern Baptist Convention
“Those who are suppressing belief in God and trying to make materialism the law of the land should beware. Ben Stein is on a mission to stop the suppression, and millions of Americans are behind him.”
— Pat Robertson, Host, 700 Club
“In EXPELLED, Ben Stein shows us what happens when academic freedom takes a day off. We should all be listening.”
— Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus
“EXPELLED is both an eye-opening documentary and riotous entertainment.”
— Joseph Farah, CEO, WorldNetDaily.com
“This movie may trigger a cultural revolution.”
— Dennis Wagner, Executive Director, Access Research Network
“EXPELLED could easily be one of the most important movies of the year.”
— Denny Rydberg, President, Young Life
“EXPELLED is earthshaking. I was absolutely blown away. Everyone in America, even skeptics of Intelligent Design, must see this film.”
— J. Matt Barber, Director for Cultural Issues, Concerned Women for America
“A cultural earthquake. . . Everyone I talked to after the screening used words like ‘fabulous’ and ‘incredible’.”
— Dr. Tom Woodward, Director, C.S. Lewis Society
“A solid case for giving the theory of Intelligent Design a respected place in the classroom alongside Darwin’s theory of Evolution.”
— Dick Rolfe, Co-Founder and CEO, The Dove Foundation
Wow, it’s amazing how many religious “leaders” like a movie that’s allegedly about a “non-religious scientific theory”. And, look! They’re all evangelical Protestants, too! Fancy that.
Thanks, Tom, for yet more evidence of what “Expelled’s” producers really want…to use schools as tent revivals.
Tom Says: You have to see this new film Expelled
R O T F L M A O
Which planet do you live on Tom???
That would be nice to have some revival in the schools Ivy. Maybe crime would go down in the school. 🙂
Wow, I can’t recall seeing so many ignorant, delusional points of view gathered up in one post like that. Note the religious and political slants. Go to http://www.expelledexposed.com for some facts.
And I’m still waiting for intelligent design to produce one, just one peer-reviewed scientific research paper with data supporting its claims. But it won’t happen, since it’s not science. 😉
Here’s a bit of information regarding that future screen gem…
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Here Tommy Boy go educate your self.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
If you haven’t seen it you should Jonathan !
Ivy Mike “Great minds”
“That would be nice to have some revival in the schools Ivy. Maybe crime would go down in the school.”
Sure, because preachers never commit crimes, right? Because 90% of current prison inmates describe themselves as religious, right?
Besides, preaching religion in public schools is, you know, unconstitutional.
Oh, and the fact that religion isn’t science by any means. You’d have us lie to kids to indoctrinate them illegally. Nice.
I have Tom, it is utter crapola,we are just waitng for the Law suits!!
We’re like a Greek chorus of reason. 😉
I have to post this again, too:
http://www.evolutionsunday.com
We don’t need to fight. Peace.
Tom –
I did see the movie Expelled, I saw the screening of it here in Orlando. It blew.
Prepare to be sorely disappointed.
Christ is a being not a religion and his life may be taught in the public school – it is not unconstitutional.
The groundswell is against you antichrists.
“Christ is a being not a religion and his life may be taught in the public school – it is not unconstitutional.”
Unfortunately, there is no independant evidence that someone by the name “Yeshua bin Yoseph” (which would have been his true name) even existed.
Even if this “Christ” actually did exist, there is absolutely NO evidence that he was in any way divine. All that is religious belief, and thus unconstitutional.
Your faith, however strong it may be, does not constitute evidence.
“The groundswell is against you antichrists.”
Yeah, sure. When you guys show up with your pitchforks, I’ll be waiting.
Gads, there are just so many people who wish to teach MY kids THEIR religion in schools that MY tax dollars pay for.
Hey Tom! Religion and government don’t mix. Check it out: Salem witch trials. That was relatively recent history for the Founders (Ben Franklin was born only a dozen years after that event.) We’re not going back to the good ol’ days, even if there are many who want to take us there.
Teaching Greek Mythology in school is not unconstitutional so teaching(not preaching) about Jesus should fall into the same context.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
“Teaching Greek Mythology in school is not unconstitutional so teaching(not preaching) about Jesus should fall into the same context.”
I don’t think that’s what the “Toms” of the world want, dude.
Yep, mythology all around!
Hey Tom – I have a question for you. When you went to see Expelled
, did you notice that they were playing John Lennon’s – ‘Imagine’-
(You know the one … “Imagine there’s no Heaven…no religion too”)?
I can’t believe that the academic freedom bill almost (almost) got applied to the one scientific subject I am not allowed to teach in my middle school: Sex Ed! We are not allowed to teach about condoms, instead the “just say no” crowd comes in for 6 session of, well, Just Say No and don’t ask about condoms or how to protect yourself from disease if you do like so many kids do and make a mistake that might cost you your life! That really is where academic freedom is needed! And if you don’t believe it just look at the data that is out since “Abstinence Only” began to be taught in our classrooms by a bunch of Baptist Youth ministers. Pregnancy is up!
As for the comment about crime going down where the fundamentalist religions reign look at statistics for crime in Chicago and you will find a downtown neighborhood with the lowest crime rate in the city and beautiful old restored row houses with picture perfect yards and it is full of evangelical churches, oops no its full of goddless gay people – yup thats right it is a Gay neighborhood! Look at Massachusetts with the lowest divorce rate in the Country and it is the bastion of: Evangelicals and Intelligent design? No Evolution is taught in the schools and Godless Gay Marriages are performed regularly!
Amen!
Oh, there you evilutionists go again! Using science and data to prove your point! ( insert sarcasm emoticon here ).
Amazin innit? The areas of the country, according to the US Cenus folks, with the highest rates of child abuse, teen pregnancy, and divorice are…. drum roll please…areas in the bible belt!
That’s a good idea, more religion in public schools. Abstinence-only sex ed has worked so well! Teens really relate to that sort of crap.
Although I despise the Catholic sect of religion for their extreme and ridiculous ritualistic holy rollerism, (just look at how they are groveling over the popy wopy on his visit to the U.S.) it makes me nauseous. I would piss on him. At least I do greatly admire the Catholic organization for creating their own private school system. They did it, of course, to avoid suffering the obnoxious religious teachings of the Protestants, forced upon our public schools in the mid 1850’s.
Fundies – create your own private school system and teach whatever the hell you want. Do not try to force your ignorance upon the rest of us, who are now living in the 21’st century.
Thanks a lot and have a nice day. 😈
And … Catholics are not afraid of science – they embrace it.
Yes, as do the majority of Christians. It is only a very vocal minority of fundamentalists who have any problem with science or evolution.
Because PC, those are the ones who stand to lose the most when their sham is exposed.
“those (evolutionists) are the ones who stand to lose the most when their sham is exposed.” Absolutely !!!
Really Tom? Is that the best you can do? Quote mine and misquote? How christian of you! Surely you can do better? 🙄