Florida’s proposed new standards requiring the teaching of evolution in science classes have many parents and educators demanding that other alternate concepts and theories, such as intelligent design, be taught alongside.
While students in Florida public schools for years have been learning many of the concepts that make up the theory of evolution – such as mutation and natural selection – the state Board of Education will decide in February whether to mandate a more explicit and in-depth teaching of evolution.
Advocates of the new science standards, which were proposed in October, say that the teaching of evolution and other topics required by the guidelines would improve Florida's poor performance in science.
In 2005, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank, gave Florida an F grade during a review of science education programs nationwide. The present standards were criticized for covering too many topics for students to fully understand them, education officials say, according to The Associated Press.
At least one board member strongly supports the new standards.
But opinions on the controversial issue are varied.
Opponents of the new guidelines are calling on the state Board to provide for education on other theories on the origins of life – particularly, intelligent design.
"To show it from just one perspective and say this is more important or more accurate than the rest, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of that," state representative Will Weatherford told the St. Petersburg Times.
State board member Donna Callaway said she would vote against the standards, according to an editorial published by Florida Baptist Witness.
She agreed that evolution should be taught in some degree but wanted other theories explored as well, she said in the editorial.
"I firmly believe that a child can deal with the proof of science along with a personal belief in God as the Creator of the universe at the same time. The classroom should allow him, openly, that opportunity," said Callaway, a retired Tallahassee middle school principal with a Southern Baptist background.
The proposed revisions in Florida are part of a national debate on how evolution should be taught in public schools and whether to teach other theories. A recent Harris poll found that less than half of Americans (42 percent) said they believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Critics of intelligent design contend that the teaching is motivated by religious beliefs and represents an attempt to introduce Creationism into the classrooms.
Proponents of intelligent design, however, say that scientific evidence shows that the origins of life came from an "intelligent cause." According to the Discovery Institute, a think tank on intelligent design, the teaching does not oppose the evolutionary theory – if “evolution” is defined by "change over time," or “that living things are related by common ancestry.” But proponents say they reject claims made by neo-Darwinian evolution.
Parents and educators in Florida have expressed support for teaching intelligent design by contacting the state Board of Education at public hearings and in letters, phone calls, e-mails, and comments on the Department of Education website.
Education activist Kim Kendall agrees with teaching evolution but wants teachers to offer evidence that also contradicts the Darwinian theory.
"They're being very dogmatic," Kendall said, as reported by AP. "They do need to continue to teach evolution, but they need to allow the teachers to teach both the faults and the supports of evolution."
"Students should learn why some scientists give scientific critiques of standard models of neo-Darwinian evolution," framer Fred Cutting, an aerospace engineer from Clearwater, wrote in a letter to both committees.
Two committees of scientists, educators and other citizens that wrote and framed the new standards are expected to consider the public comments before bringing the final draft to the board.
The comment period on the website ends Dec. 14 and two more public hearings are scheduled for Jan. 3 in Jacksonville and Jan. 8 in Fort Lauderdale.
Comments
WHY IS IT, WHEN A SUBJECT THAT IS RELIGHIOUS COMES UP IN THE PUBLIC,S ATTENTION.
IT IS BAZZAR!
LIKE:
PEOPLE PRAYING TO A HIGHWAY
PEOPLE PROTESTING A FUNARL
PEOPLE SAYING SCIENCETIST ARE SATINIST
PEOPLE TRYING TO COVENCE AMERICAN'S, THAT THEY ARE BETER OF ELECTING A PRIEST
I, FOR ONE AM NOT BUYING (CLEAR EYE'S) EVER. IT MIGHT BE THE RESON, BEN STIEN NOW SEE'S THE WORLD LIKE HE DOE'S. USE CAUTION!
THE MIND IS A TERRORIST THING TO WAIST!
ALL RELIGION,S SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUS ,EXCEPT FOR THE DANGER'S
LIKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH! THAT'S A HATE CRIME? IM ONLY ACTING LIKE THE BIBLE SAY'S
ATTACK!
NO FREEDOM OF SPEACH HERE
LET'S JUST LET THEM HAVE THIER WAY WITH YOUR KIDS AND TEACH THERE MORALS
A delicate woman doing evil to her children and eating them
Deut. 28:56-57
A fair woman without discretion resembling a jewel of gold in a swine's snout
Proverbs 11:22
A human body wallowing in blood on the highway
II Sam. 20:12
Abandoning orphans
Psalms 109:7-20
An angel killing 185,000 warriors in one night
II Kings 19:35
Angels consorting with women of earth
Gen. 6:4
Asking your neighbors to help you stone a stubborn son to death
STAY TUNED KID'S WE'LL WORK ON THE (B'S) AFTER WE EAT GOD'S BODY FOR LUNCH!
MY SON GO'S TO A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AND THE WORD GOD! IS INBETWEEN EVERY WORD,
EVERY CLASS, EVERY DAY, NO MATTER THE SUBJECT? CHRISTIAN'S MAKE CHRISTIAN'S LOOK BAD.
POLICE YOURSELF!
I NEED HELP CULT LEADER
I CANT GET A JOB
I LOST MY HOUSE
MY CAR BROOK DOWN
I GOT STAINS ON MY SOLE
WHAT IS A INFIDEL TO DO?
Chris333,
I know that NONE of those claims are valid, but the ignorant repeat them ad nausea and are trying to teach this junk to our children.
"It's just a theory"
Most people do not understand the difference between a scientific theory, and the colloquial use of the word theory. Do you? Evolutionary theory is supported by volumes of facts, and is no less valid than atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, or the theory of limits. Evolutionary theory has further proven itself in practice with applications in epidemiology, pest control, pharmacology to name a few. Why don’t you instead focus your crusade against electron theory which explains why you have power to make your computer work? After all, it’s just a theory.
"There is no fossil evidence"
I disagree with you. Many ID proponents claim that there is no fossil evidence (incorrectly). Those that say that the fossil record goes directly against evolution are wrong too. The observation that fossils of new species are fully formed is not evidence against evolution. This idea is based on the spurious assumption that organisms evolve evenly and slowly, that it involves most or all of the ancestral population, and that transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range. Studies have shown (repeatedly) that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area, which clearly explains the above assumptions. A change in environment is the greatest catalyst.
"Scientists disagree"
Not an argument – I agree. Almost every scientist disagrees with ID, save Behe and Dempski. However if you want to find consistent information and agreement about evolution, you don’t have to look any further than the worlds finest institutions, such as Harvard, Princeton, the National Academy of Science, or NASA. It’s baffling that some would rather get their information from quacks at the Discovery Institute.
"The Universe is 6000 years old"
Some ID proponents assert this. Do you? My point is that this is willful ignorance in the highest degree.
"I didn't come from no monkey, I came from Jesus"
Again, extremely stupid. First of all, nobody teaches that we evolved from monkeys. Rather, that we share a common ancestor with the great apes. So, you find it more tenable that you came from a man that lived 2000 years ago rather than natural processes? I bet if we polled a few 3 year olds, they might disagree.
jkrup, first you better get a basic understanding of the arguments against naturalistic evolution your list will not do.
"It's just a theory"
Yes it is just a theory, that is not evidence against it anyways. If you would have said, "All the evidennce for evolution can fit inside a tiny box" Quoting an atheistic pro-evolution scientist, then I would have been touched and also wanting to hear your response.
"There is no fossil evidence"
Wrong again, ID proponents do not say there is no fossil evidence, they say that the fossil record goes directly against evolution, that rather it looks like the various life forms were fully formed etc etc.
"Scientists disagree"
Not an argument, many scientists disagree, even within ID. Nobody uses that as a reason to reject evolution. However if they disagree on major points then we have reason to be suspect.
"The Universe is 6000 years old"
Not all ID proponents assert this, what is your point?
"I didn't come from no monkey, I came from Jesus"
ID proponents do not asset this, but it sounds more tennable than saying that a jaw bone proves we came from monkeys.
Anyway, you said these things like they meant something, perhaps they mean that you do not understand the debate and are obviously just biased towards your own opinion, but not much else. Before you go off trying to defend science you better think about how to debate and what you are debating.
Here we go again...Another forum for America's dumbest to come and debate evolution. So let's hear those ignorant claims like:
It's just a theory
There is no fossil evidence
Scientists disagree
The Universe is 6000 years old
I didn't come from no monkey, I came from Jesus
Unfortunatly science needs defending. So let's hear your moronic claims so I can continue to explain basic science to deaf ears.
Torus,
Check out William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman debate on the Historicity of the Resurrection. The point is, there is a strong historical precedent for believing in the Resurrection, it is not subjective or at all comparable to the Dali Lama.
Token,
The idea that Christ was made up or forged is shear intellectual suicide. If you deny the existence of Jesus as a real person, you may as well deny the existence of all other people of antiquity. If the Gospel accounts of Jesus did not have miracles then historians would say that Jesus Christ definitely existed and that the Gospel accounts are amazingly accurate.
Schumacr -
1. There are many arguments regarding the probability of life being created. Some current arguments suggest that it's almost one-hundred percent likely in a universe. Others point out that the unlikeliness is irrelevant given that we're here; perhaps the universe has been pulsing forever and by chance in this one the constants are just so. The point is that we really don't sufficiently understand the situation to use it as a judgement.
2. I would never attempt to use my building turning to cheese as a way to convince someone else. Do you believe in reincarnation on earth of enlightened lamas? There are many accounts in contemporary Buddhism, after all. Me, I don't believe that something unreasonable happened just because someone said it did, including the resurrection of christ or some enlightened lama or any other such claim. You asked what would convince me, not what would be transferrable to others. Anyone else would be perfectly justified in calling me loony. In fact I would be the first to question my own sanity.
TokenSP:
Yes, Wikipedia is nice, but if you choose to actually read the scholars who know their stuff then you’ll find there are 2 accounts from Josephus – one that contains the disputed information and one that does not and simply references Christ as a historical person.
I also notice you say I reference wrong ‘people’ and then just go after the disputed Josephus paragraph. What – couldn’t find anything to your liking on Pliny or Tacitus so you just ignore them? I like that you check up on things, but you need to not put on blinders and go all the way with the information excavation or at least simply admit you have to suspend judgment on your original statement at this time.
Not so easy to disprove the NT or the historical evidence is it? The reason is, you can’t – it’s there, or as one of my favorite theologians has said, “The contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated” (Aquinas).
Hi, schmuacr you said:
Oh my, you didn’t just claim all that did you? No offense, but you really haven’t looked into this at all... Working backwards, Tacitus – a Roman historian – referenced Jesus when he wrote in 100 AD: “Christus, from whom they got their name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor…” Pliny the younger, from Asia Minor, wrote in his works during the same time period: , “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed…” And Josephus, a Jewish historian and no friend of Christianity, has a somewhat lengthy portrayal of Christ in his “Antiquities of the Jews” work. There is more, but I think the above nails the coffin shut on your claim of no extra-biblical writings of Christ.
Given your sources id say that you chose to take credit in the wrong people. To my current knowledge of the situation ^^ most scholars admit that Christians made forgery's of Jesus's existence such as Josephus and such. I suggest you look further into the credibility of those sources... and I know wikipedia isnt a very scholarly source but we can learn a lot from them at times ^^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
I understand your points and questions, which are good. Let me see if I can work through them. I hear your comments on Ross, but he’s not alone in his thoughts of course. Even Hawking (no friend of the God concept) admitted the universe’s knobs seems to be “very carefully chosen.”
I also understand your comments on probability, but all this time we’ve discussed what is reasonable to believe and easier to accept. Is it really easier to believe all those mechanisms came together by chance than admit that some intelligence preselected them to allow life to occur?
As to your questions that occur from me positing God – I hear you loud and clear. There certainly are questions to be answered and I can bounce through them if you’d like (from the Christian perspective). The starting point, though, is to first conclude that there is an intelligence out there that is responsible for what we know. Once you understand/accept that, then you begin work on the “what is ‘it’ like" set of issues.
You must like cheese; I’m a chocolate guy myself. How about his miracle – Christ rising from the dead? Now before you poo-poo me, think about this: let’s say He really did turn your building into mozzarella. You’d be convinced you said. So you’d probably tell people, probably even write about what happened and do all you could to compile evidence to prove it to people. 100 years from now, do you think people would doubt what happened to you?
Well, welcome to the NT account of the resurrection. The disciples ran from Christ when the Romans murdered Him, but three days later they came out of hiding and went to their death for one reason – they said they’d seen Him alive. People will die for the truth or what they believe to be the truth, but no one dies for what they know to be false. The evidence for the resurrection is some of the most solid stuff from history; ditto on what happened to the disciples. Heck, even Anthony Flew admitted that Christ came back from the dead, although he said it had to be a natural cause.
God doesn’t use miracles flippantly like some people say; throughout all of history there were only 3 periods where they occurred and each time for the same reason – to validate His message to His people. Why not look at the book “Who Moved the Stone?” from Frank Morison? He originally set out to write a book disproving the resurrection and then became a believer through his investigation. It’s loaded with the type of logic and reasonable arguments you like.
Thanks!
Schumacr -
1. It should be noted that Hugh Ross is hardly the sole purveyer of the anthropic principle and is hardly an impartial scientist. The AP has many interpretations, his is but one fringe understanding.
As an aside, as a mathematician I can assure you that "the exact same thing as zero chance" is a figure of speech. The chances of my rolling a six on a die 65 times in a row is 1/X where X is about 10^50. You and I can both agree, however, that it is far from impossible though certainly improbable.
2. The problems with your "one big miracle" argument are manifold including:
(a) It's a whopper which leaves many unspoken questions. Where is god? Is he subject to time? How did he perform actions with no time dimension? Where did he get the stuff to make the universe? Questions like these can roll off the tongue forever and most of them are fluffed over with the "unknowable-ness" of god. This is weak at best.
(b) It's arbitrary. I could very well postulate the existence of a machine which churns out universes. Provided you ask no questions about the machine (don't, it's unknowable) then this is perfectly satisfactory.
3. To answer your question about what it would take for me to believe in your god or someone else's, one example (off the top of my head) would be if he turned the building I live in to cheese. While he may be above such tomfoolery he'd certainly have to pull something equivalently unambiguously miraculous.
TokenSP -
I disagree with your scientific analogies as they don’t address my main argument, which is there are differences between intelligent and natural causes. Would your naturalist scientist stare up at Mt. Rushmore and begin to analyze how the elements created it?
<< The gospels are not firsthand accounts… authors of the gospels are unknown… none of these men were around when Jesus was alive… we dont find is historical documents as in documents outside religious texts that say Jesus existed>>
Oh my, you didn’t just claim all that did you? No offense, but you really haven’t looked into this at all... Working backwards, Tacitus – a Roman historian – referenced Jesus when he wrote in 100 AD: “Christus, from whom they got their name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor…” Pliny the younger, from Asia Minor, wrote in his works during the same time period: , “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed…” And Josephus, a Jewish historian and no friend of Christianity, has a somewhat lengthy portrayal of Christ in his “Antiquities of the Jews” work. There is more, but I think the above nails the coffin shut on your claim of no extra-biblical writings of Christ.
As to your other claims of the NT authors not being around during the life of Christ, first century commentaries of the NT exist so that means the NT had to be written earlier. In fact, the entire NT can be reconstructed from the quotes of the early church fathers alone, except for a few lines in 3 John. But beyond that, even skeptics of the NT admit that there is not one NT book that goes past 90AD, with the synoptics being penned much earlier (as were Paul's epistles). All were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and anyone who doubts their authorship or says otherwise has to look past an avalanche of scholarly research. The NT blossomed into over 5,000 ancient manuscripts; more than any other work from the ancient world with archeology never once refuting a person or place mentioned. If you’re going to toss out the NT, then toss our every other history book you’ve got on the ancient world.
Torus -
Thanks for the clarifications - I appreciate it. My reference to great men/women who believe in God was only to refute the faulty-analogy fallacy of comparing God to the tooth fairy; the last time I looked there weren't men and women who have devoted their lives to the tooth fairy; that was my point.
You raise an interesting reference with Ockham's razor. I have always felt that belief in God benefited from the razor as opposed to naturalism/atheism, with the reason being this: I only need one big miracle to explain the world whereas the atheist needs a billion little miracles to make sense of things. The anthropic principle alone (according to Hugh Ross) says that the odds of all anthropic constants (122 at last count) to be in place for any planet in the universe by luck alone is one chance in ten with 138 zeros after it. This number becomes even more incredible to me when you realize there are only 10 70 atoms in the entire universe and that mathematicians point out that anything which exceeds 10 50 power is the exact same thing as zero chance.
I wasn't trying to stack the deck in my favor with the "what would it take" question; I genuinely would like to know. I will answer your question though: since I am a Christian, the only thing that needs to happen is for someone to truly produce the body of Christ. Do that one thing and Christianity is undone. Paul said that if Christ has not been raised our faith is worthless. So there you go. And the world will have to do better than James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici 's lame attempt... :-)
Chris333 - The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is the dominant theory about what appears to be going on, structurally, currently, with the universe. It does not address why it is going on or what happened in the first instant of the universe. Or rather, it attempts to address the latter but can't quite reach all the way back.
The theories I mention which try to address things further are just conjectures. Basically what you do is sit down, look at the topological structure of the universe and conjecture what sort of larger structure this could be a part of. Some comments are in order:
(a) All of these theories are just conjectures.
(b) Almost all have so little data as make sure you refer to (a).
(c) I don't specifically believe in any of them but some seem more reasonable than others.