Comment on proposed Florida evolution education standards
The proposed Florida science education standards can be reached only by logging in on this webpage.
When you reach the webpage subtitled "Grade Level Site Map," click on the grade level of 9-12, then click on "Review Standards" for "Life Science Body of Knowledge." Then scroll about halfway down through the webpage, and between Benchmark SC.912.L.1.52 and Benchmark SC.912.L.2.1 you will see the following:
I clicked on the "Strongly Disagree" option and added the following comment:
I then clicked on the "Save Comment" button but got no indication that the comment was saved. Hence, as a precaution, I also emailed the above comment to the email addresses listed in this post.
The current Florida science standards do not mention the e-word. The infamous Fordham Institute (no connection to Fordham U.) state science standards report gave Florida an F for evolution.
Contrary to what the Darwinists say, science education is a democracy. Within the limits of the Constitution (and not the constitutional limits as interpreted by Judge Jones), we do not have to resign ourselves to sitting back and letting science education standards be dictated by bureaucrats, journalists, scientists (though their input is important), scientific organizations, the ACLU, politicians, and even judges (there are ways to get around judges' decisions on the matter).
.
When you reach the webpage subtitled "Grade Level Site Map," click on the grade level of 9-12, then click on "Review Standards" for "Life Science Body of Knowledge." Then scroll about halfway down through the webpage, and between Benchmark SC.912.L.1.52 and Benchmark SC.912.L.2.1 you will see the following:
Evolution and Diversity.
A. Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.
B. Organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history.
C. Natural selection is the primary mechanism leading to evolutionary change.
I clicked on the "Strongly Disagree" option and added the following comment:
"Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology"
Wrong. There are many areas of biology where evolution is irrelevant. A knowledge of evolution theory is needed in understanding some areas of biology, e.g., paleontology and cladistic taxonomy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that evolution theory is true in whole or in part. Evolutionary explanations are often perfunctorily added as a mere formality.
" -- and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence"
Study of the weaknesses of Darwinism should be added to the science standards. One weakness is called "irreducible complexity." Another weakness is co-evolution, the mutual evolution of two co-dependent kinds of organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants. In co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, air, and climate, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent.
"Organisms are classified based on their evolutionary history."
Only in cladistic taxonomy. Evolution theory is not used in traditional Linnaean taxonomy, which is still popular, particularly outside of paleontology. Linnaean taxonomy was developed long before Darwin introduced his theory of evolution.
"Natural selection is the primary mechanism leading to evolutionary change."
Both mutations and natural selection are necessary for evolutionary change and neither of the two is "primary."
I then clicked on the "Save Comment" button but got no indication that the comment was saved. Hence, as a precaution, I also emailed the above comment to the email addresses listed in this post.
The current Florida science standards do not mention the e-word. The infamous Fordham Institute (no connection to Fordham U.) state science standards report gave Florida an F for evolution.
Contrary to what the Darwinists say, science education is a democracy. Within the limits of the Constitution (and not the constitutional limits as interpreted by Judge Jones), we do not have to resign ourselves to sitting back and letting science education standards be dictated by bureaucrats, journalists, scientists (though their input is important), scientific organizations, the ACLU, politicians, and even judges (there are ways to get around judges' decisions on the matter).
.
Labels: Evolution education
posted by Larry Fafarman | 12/14/2007 12:20:00 PM
15 Comments:
< scientists (though their input is important) >
How generous.
Not nearly as important as that of ignorant cranks, however.
Good work, Larry. But it looks as if public comments on the standards are now closed.
Damn... looks like you must of left one hell of an obscene or derogatory comment cuz they closed off the commenting section shortly after you posted.
Contrary to what you want to believe, science is not a democracy and never was. Sure you can say and believe what you want, but for it to be accepted in science, you have to prove it experimentally with reproducible results. If science were to act as a democracy, we would still be debating the merits of the sun revolving around a flat earth.
> If science were to act as a democracy, we would still be debating the merits of the sun revolving around a flat earth. <
Larry may believe this. In the past he has claimed that meteors come from inside the atmosphere and the moon landings were staged.
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>>Good work, Larry. <<<<
Thanks, Jim.
>>>>>> But it looks as if public comments on the standards are now closed. <<<<<
Yes, I noticed that too. I was lucky to get in under the wire. They should have left the proposed standards online, though, so people could read them even if they can't rate them or add comments.
I only very recently became aware of the particular standards that I commented on in the above post.
Comments may of course still be sent to the emails on this post. Maybe you can send them some limericks. LOL
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> Damn... looks like you must of left one hell of an obscene or derogatory comment cuz they closed off the commenting section shortly after you posted. <<<<<<
What do you mean? My comment is shown above. Do you consider that to be obscene or derogatory? Do you think that there were not nastier comments? What a moron.
>>>>>> Contrary to what you want to believe, science is not a democracy and never was. <<<<<<
I didn't say science is a democracy -- I said science education is a democracy.
>Maybe you can send them some limericks. LOL<
Another inappropriate cackler?
Anonymous driveled,
<<<<<< scientists (though their input is important) >
How generous. <<<<<<
It is ironic that you are ridiculing that remark -- maybe next time I will just leave it out.
> It is ironic that you are ridiculing that remark <
Perhaps because it was worthy of ridicule?
Saying that the input of scientists is important is worthy of ridicule?
I have seen your name elsewhere quite a few times, Mr. Fafarman. Everywhere you go, you spread lies about science. What motivates you? Do you prefer supernatural magic instead of science? What's your problem? I live in Florida and I'm very pleased our science standards are finally being improved. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute gave our old science standards an F grade, and our new standards are likely to get an A. For evolution our old standards scored 0 out of a possible 3 points. They said "The superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology alone justifies the grade F" and they also pointed out the word "evolution" is not even in our old science standards.
You said "One weakness is called irreducible complexity."
What's that suppose to mean? Does it mean if Michael Behe can't figure out how something evolved, then the designer did it? Designer is just another word for magic. Do you think scientists should invoke magic?
You said "Study of the weaknesses of Darwinism should be added to the science standards."
Only know-nothing creationists call evolution "Darwinism". There are NO weaknesses in evolution. Scientists debate the minor details of evolution, but no competent scientist would claim evolution is weak or has weaknesses. That would be like saying there's weaknesses in the theory the earth orbits the sun. No scientist doubts the earth's orbit and no scientist doubts evolution.
coevolution: "The evolution of two or more interdependent species, each adapting to changes in the other. It occurs, for example, between predators and prey and between insects and the flowers that they pollinate."
You said "Another weakness is co-evolution". I read what you said about it. Again you are calling something you don't understand a weakness. Are you a biologist? I certainly hope not. If you were a biologist you would be a disgrace to your profession like Behe is.
"there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent."
So what? What's your point? I suggest, since you are not a biologist, and since you don't know what you're talking about, why don't you just shut up about evolution? Perhaps you are getting paid to spread your ignorance all over the place. Is that what motivates you? You are as dumb as the Discovery Institute liars. Maybe you work for them.
BobC said,
>>>>> I live in Florida and I'm very pleased our science standards are finally being improved. <<<<<<
Don't count your chickens yet.
>>>>> The Thomas B. Fordham Institute gave our old science standards an F grade <<<<<<
The Fordham Institute stinks. FI threatened to drop Ohio's overall science grade from a B to an F because of the Ohio evolution lesson plan, even though evolution counts for only 3 points out of 69 in the FI rating system. The FI report's lead author is Paul R. Gross, a Darwinist crackpot who is co-author -- along with Barbara Forrest -- of the book "Creationism's Trojan Horse."
>>>>> Does it mean if Michael Behe can't figure out how something evolved, then the designer did it? <<<<<
Not just Michael Behe, but scientists in general. I've always thought that the name "intelligent design" is unfortunate because it implies the existence of a supernatural designer.
>>>>> There are NO weaknesses in evolution. <<<<<<
Are you kidding? Evolution is riddled with weaknesses.
>>>>> You said "Another weakness is co-evolution". I read what you said about it. Again you are calling something you don't understand a weakness. Are you a biologist? <<<<<<
Most biologists don't understand co-evolution. They define it in broad, vague terms like "mutual evolutionary pressure." I am looking at the details.
A lot of the debate over evolution is philosophy. You don't need special scientific training to philosophize.
>>>>> Perhaps you are getting paid to spread your ignorance all over the place. Is that what motivates you? <<<<<
What motivates people to work for Wikipedia? Most of them aren't paid and they often get shafted by Wikipedia.
>>>>>> You are as dumb as the Discovery Institute liars. Maybe you work for them. <<<<<<
I definitely do not work for the Discovery Institute. I have criticized the DI on this blog.
> FI threatened to drop Ohio's overall science grade from a B to an F because of the Ohio evolution lesson plan, even though evolution counts for only 3 points out of 69 in the FI rating system. <
The number of points is quite irrelevant in this case. If someone got most of a geography quiz right but still insisted that the Earth was flat, they still would deserve an F.
> The FI report's lead author is Paul R. Gross, a Darwinist crackpot <
Name calling is not an argument. If you think that he is a crackpot, you must give reasons.
Being a crackpot yourself does not make you an expert on crackpots.
> I've always thought that the name "intelligent design" is unfortunate because it implies the existence of a supernatural designer. <
While you believe the designer to be space aliens.
> I am looking at the details. <
And yet you will still never understand it.
> A lot of the debate over evolution is philosophy. You don't need special scientific training to philosophize. <
As long as you don't care how meaningless your philosophy is.
> What motivates people to work for Wikipedia? Most of them aren't paid and they often get shafted by Wikipedia. <
Most are not shafted by Wikipedia. On the other case, most do not engage in self-proclaimed "edit wars" to add misinformation to it.
< I am looking at the details. >
Also known as, "Can't see the forest for the trees."
An entire industry has grown up to provide fundamentalist Christians with the Biblical-literalist pseudo-science that they crave. The ICR, Discovery Institute, CRS, Answers-in-Genesis, etc. are ready to tell you what you want to hear. You can find a variety of their books and tapes claiming that evolution is a deeply flawed theory in the process of being discarded. This is just what the Noah's Ark crowd wants to hear and so these organizations sell it to them. In the actual world of science, however, this fantasy situation does not exist. Evolution is the only rational way to explain what we see in Biology. Life is often just one Rube-Goldberg contraption after another; not particularly well-designed, and often overly complex, yet mostly functional. A product of evolution is going to turn out just that way. Most of the species that have ever existed are now extinct (like 99%) and they certainly were not all created at the same time. Genesis 1:20 says;
"And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..."
Funny how 80 years ago the ACLU was demanding that evolution AND creation models of origins be taught in public schools as mandated by the Constitutional requirement of neutrality to competing ideologies of origins. This was the purpose of the famous Scopes trial in 1925.
However as evidenced yesterday at the Orlando hearing on changing science curriculum in public schools- it was apparent that now the forces of intolerance and dogmatic exclusiveness were evident by the ACLU's insistence that any criticism of evolution or inclusion of the alternative models of origins were a violation of church and state. This seemed to be the attitude of many of the administrators in the public school system as well though most parents strongly disagreed.
In fact the intent of these changes to public school curriculum seems to be to indoctrinate children into believing evolution is a fact and as a result that any and all scientific criticism of this molecule to man theory by mutation and natural selection to be irrelevant or simply ignored as idiotic. It seems that there is an inquisition of belief in our academia that is blind or unwilling to acknowledge that evolution is a theory in crisis and that the scientific foundations of neo-Darwinism are in fact crumbling all around us as new discoveries in cellular research, dna, biology, information systems etc. run in opposition to the evolution hypothesis. In fact it appears that any notable scientist who dares question evolution theory runs the risk of losing his job, noble prize nomination, publishing rights, etc. as happened to Sir Fred Hoyle, Dr. Robert Gentry, Dr. Wilder-Smith and numerous others in the recent past.
As I testified at this hearing-in my 26 years study on this subject I am certain of only one thing- that BOTH models of origins require a giant leap of faith as both macro-evolution and creation models are historic events or require vast ages of time. When men like Dr. Wilder Smith who has 3 Phd's in organic chemistry & pharmacology can succesfully argue the creation case against evolutionists like Richard Dawkins(Huxley Debate in Oxford,England in 1986) I'd say that this issue is far more complex than most realize. In such a case...both evidences scientifically should be taught and debated in school for in such an atmosphere true education and critical thinking takes place. Read Dr. Wilder-Smith's book "A Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolution" for a world class scientist's critique of the chemical impossibility of macro-evolution.
Chip Rohlke
BS/MS Systems Mgmt FIT
po box 34117 Indialantic Fl.
321-298-9796
Post a Comment
<< Home