Highlands County school board cops out
A Feb. 7 news article reported that the Highlands County school board in Florida failed to pass a resolution opposing the proposed state science standards on evolution education. Previous news articles -- here and here -- reported that all five school board members were leaning towards passing such a resolution. The school board has no credibility. I could understand one or two members being persuaded to change their minds -- but more? There were two different proposed resolutions and the board did not vote on either of them, and the board did not even discuss the resolutions after the public testimony. Well, as Sir Thomas More said in the play "A Man for All Seasons," silence betokens consent, not denial. LOL
According to the Feb. 7 news article, there were 10 public speakers opposed to the resolutions. Florida Citizens for Science said that there was one public speaker in favor of the resolutions, but this public speaker is not mentioned in the news article. The underrepresentation of pro-resolution speakers was probably a factor in the defeat of the resolutions. Another factor was that email addresses of the board members were not posted, making it difficult for supporters of the resolutions to send in opinions.
The Feb. 7 news article said,
The alternative resolution, which as I noted also failed to pass, says nothing about other theories -- it only asks that the new state standards "allow" the teaching of scientific weaknesses of evolution. The Darwinists are not only saying that scientific weaknesses of evolution are not known now, but are also saying that such weaknesses are not going to be found in the future. It's like Judge Jones' following ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, inter alia: "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants . . . . from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution . . " He was not only ruling against Intelligent Design but was also ruling against criticisms of Darwinism that he had not even considered. The Darwinists have inaugurated a reign of terror where some Darwinists themselves -- like some of the leaders in the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution -- will become victims. Darwinian dogma will become so rigid that even unorthodox versions of the dogma -- e.g., punctuated equilibrium -- will not be tolerated.
On the bright side: apparently no Florida county school board has yet passed a resolution supporting the proposed state science standards and around a dozen have passed resolutions in opposition.
Chalk up another Pyrrhic victory for the Darwinists.
.
According to the Feb. 7 news article, there were 10 public speakers opposed to the resolutions. Florida Citizens for Science said that there was one public speaker in favor of the resolutions, but this public speaker is not mentioned in the news article. The underrepresentation of pro-resolution speakers was probably a factor in the defeat of the resolutions. Another factor was that email addresses of the board members were not posted, making it difficult for supporters of the resolutions to send in opinions.
The Feb. 7 news article said,
The original resolution the school board considered states, "the State Board of Education is urged strongly to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science such that the "Big Bang" theory and evolution shall be presented only as two of several theories in the study of science."
School Board Chairman J. Ned Hancock suggested an alternative resolution, which was prepared shortly before Tuesday's meeting, that stated, "the board urges the State Board of Education to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science to allow for balanced, objective and intellectually open instruction in regard to evolution, teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory rather than teaching evolution as dogmatic fact."
The alternative resolution, which as I noted also failed to pass, says nothing about other theories -- it only asks that the new state standards "allow" the teaching of scientific weaknesses of evolution. The Darwinists are not only saying that scientific weaknesses of evolution are not known now, but are also saying that such weaknesses are not going to be found in the future. It's like Judge Jones' following ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, inter alia: "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants . . . . from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution . . " He was not only ruling against Intelligent Design but was also ruling against criticisms of Darwinism that he had not even considered. The Darwinists have inaugurated a reign of terror where some Darwinists themselves -- like some of the leaders in the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution -- will become victims. Darwinian dogma will become so rigid that even unorthodox versions of the dogma -- e.g., punctuated equilibrium -- will not be tolerated.
On the bright side: apparently no Florida county school board has yet passed a resolution supporting the proposed state science standards and around a dozen have passed resolutions in opposition.
Chalk up another Pyrrhic victory for the Darwinists.
.
Labels: Evolution education
posted by Larry Fafarman | 2/07/2008 04:42:00 PM
28 Comments:
Larry, on Saturday:
"Many Darwinists admit that Darwinism has weaknesses and say that scientists are working on resolving those weaknesses."
Larry, on Thursday:
"The Darwinists are not only saying that scientific weaknesses of evolution are not known now, but are also saying that such weaknesses are not going to be found in the future."
Which is it?
Note that Larry has never actually identified any weaknesses. He merely claims that they exist. As usual, he's just making up facts out of thin air.
It's interesting that Larry's site meter shows recent visitors from at least eight towns in Florida. Good work, Larry.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> Larry, on Saturday:
"Many Darwinists admit that Darwinism has weaknesses and say that scientists are working on resolving those weaknesses."
Larry, on Thursday:
"The Darwinists are not only saying that scientific weaknesses of evolution are not known now, but are also saying that such weaknesses are not going to be found in the future."
Which is it? <<<<<<
Both. The Darwinists are not being consistent.
The conventional (or Darwinist) "theory of evolution" consists of nothing but weaknesses, since it purports to explain large changes by Darwinist mechanisms. As Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, puts it:
"I do not have the position, or hold the position, that Darwin's theory is incorrect, or correct. I think there is no good way to make that decision."
The quote is from Part Three of a short recorded interview with Skell, which may be found by a search at www.idthefuture.com
> The Darwinists are not being consistent.<
Larry is always good for a laugh. In the mean time it looks like the school board came to their senses and were not pushed into lunacy by the fundies.
> It's interesting that Larry's site meter shows recent visitors from at least eight towns in Florida. <
I don't think that the site meter is working. At one time it showed nearly half of the posts coming from Inglewood, including mine. I am not from Inglewood. Larry is only a few miles from Inglewood. Coincidence?
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>> It's interesting that Larry's site meter shows recent visitors from at least eight towns in Florida. Good work, Larry. <<<<<
Thanks for the info, Jim. I also looked at the SiteMeter's "by referrals" page and saw that I was getting a lot of referrals from the Florida Citizens for Science blog. Maybe they were curious about my holocaust revisionism. LOL
ViU said,
>>>>> I don't think that the site meter is working. At one time it showed nearly half of the posts coming from Inglewood, including mine. I am not from Inglewood. Larry is only a few miles from Inglewood. Coincidence? <<<<<
No, there is no coincidence. I live in Los Angeles, so I am likely to be only a few miles from Inglewood, a Los Angeles suburb.
The problem before was that I mistakenly thought that I had set sitemeter to ignore my own visits. As a result of my failure to do so, the sitemeter statistics were greatly inflated, particularly the average lengths of visits and the average numbers of page views per visit, and I apologize for that. I fixed that problem many months ago. Sitemeter should be reprogrammed to clearly indicate on the data pages whether or not it is set to ignore the blogger's own visits.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ViW, I warned you about invasions of privacy.
And according to ViU, you've been banned anyway.
I don't think that you realize that most of these resolutions are non-binding and probably will not be enforced in any way. They are mostly empty political gestures by the BoE members designed to gain or reinforce support from fundie elements of their constituents.
When a bankruptcy-inducing lawsuit hits the anti-evolution school districts that attempt to enforce this resolution, it will be the fundies who will reveling in Pyrrhic victory.
I saw the post. It only called attention to the fact that Larry doesn't seem to know where he lives:
"I am likely to be only a few miles from Inglewood<
No wonder Larry appears to be lost.
> And according to ViU, you've been banned anyway. <
And Larry has just proven it.
Residents of Florida should be interested to learn that some Darwinists now want to cross human with chimps. Prof. David P. Barash, a believer in Darwinism who teaches "evolutionary psychology", wrote an Op-Ed in The Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2006: it's entitled "Hurrah for The Monkey-Man!" Barash wrote,
"I also look forward to the possibility that...there will be hybrids, or some other mixed human-animal genetic composite in our future...the breeding or genetic engineering of half-person/half-animal...Because in these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism, with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy. And this is precisely the message that chimeras, hybrids or mixed-species clones would drive home."
Dawkins has speculated about the same thing, which he thinks would at least do damage to "religion," although he hasn't so far joined Barash by actually advocating creating a "Monkey-Man."
Fortunately, humans and chimps are so different that it would be very hard to cross them. Otherwise I might fear that Dawkins would have attempted the deed, in a personal manner: and perhaps been severely injured by a reluctant female chimp.
But the feat might be accomplished by genetic engineering, and I wonder if there are already Darwinist genetic engineers, working away feverishly in their labs...
Such a drastic measure to prove a point... guess we "Darwinists" have our own nut cases just like the violent zealots who kill in the name of fundamental Christianity. However, this man doesn't speak for all believers of evolution, much like how Fred Phelps doesn't speak for all Christians.
Incidentally, there have been human/animal "chimera" embryos already created, some of which were implanted and went on to become fully functional organisms (mice/pigs with human cell-based tissues modified in the embryonic stage on a cellular level). There have even been animals modified with human genetic materials to produce human versions of enzymes, hormones, and other proteins/biochemicals. Technically, this "modest proposal" has already been done on a smaller scale. The only difference is, upping the ratio of human/animal genetic material.
I think the one discovery/invention that would do the most damage to religion is time travel. Go back, see how it really happened, end of story. The fundies should start targeting theoretical physicists next...
Barash is such an ignoramus that he thinks that fundamentalists controlled Congress in 2006. In fact, only a small fraction of Republicans in Congress were, I believe, fundamentalists by any description: and very few Democrats qualified as such. Even the very conservative Bush has a believing Darwinist, Marburger, for a science advisor. Bush also appointed Jones to the bench, although the most superficial check would have disclosed that he was a Darwinist. So it seems that there is no sign of fundamentalist control even of the Bush administration, in spite of paranoid claims to the contrary.
>>>>> Bush also appointed Jones to the bench, although the most superficial check would have disclosed that he was a Darwinist <<<<<
We now know that Jones is a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist extremist, but what was the evidence of that before the Kitzmiller decision?
> Residents of Florida should be interested to learn that some Darwinists now want to cross human with chimps. <
It has been done. The result is living a short distance from Inglewood,
Larry, I'm not sure that concrete evidence of Jones' adamantly Darwinist views really existed at that time. But his preacher, Harold Hand, signed the Zimmerman Clergy Letter which absurdly declared the (Darwinist) "theory of evolution" to be "a foundational scientific truth", etc. So I'm inclined to think that nobody in the Bush administration bothered to do much checking; or that would have aroused their concern.
What makes you think the Bush administration would be experts at digging up background info? For an administration that excels in HIDING/IGNORING information, and whose members are selected based on their ability at NOT revealing information (re. Gonzalez, Mukasey, et al), maybe in all the efforts to bury any incriminating info on their nominees, a few helpful tidbits were covered up as well.
It is true about what you said about how the allegations of fundamentalist elements of the government and the Bush administration are overblown. The only elements driving this administration are those of personal interests and self gain for Bush and pals.
Jim,
Jones was appointed to a federal judgeship in 2002 and the Zimmerman Clergy Letter started in 2004. Also, I think it is too indirect a connection and a connection that would not easily be found, and it also looks like guilt by association.
O.K., Larry I think you're right: there may have been no evidence. And of course no one knew when he was appointed that Jones would be in a position to play the role that he arrogated to himself; or that he would choose to play that role.
> What makes you think the Bush administration would be experts at digging up background info? <
The certainly are better than the Clintons who appointed first Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, and Lani Guanier, but were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Then came Hillary's former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster "committed suicide", and Kennedy was forced to resign.
Next came Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him.
> The only elements driving this administration are those of personal interests and self gain for Bush and pals. <
I think you picked the wrong administration. While there is nothing but accusations to indicate that Bush or Cheny have profited during his term, the Clintons claimed to have had a net worth of less than $1 million when he became president. Last week she loaned $4 million to her campaign from her approximately $30 million net worth. Did Bill get that in speaking fees?
The Bush bashers are high on rhetoric and low on facts.
Jim said,
>>>>> O.K., Larry I think you're right: there may have been no evidence. <<<<<
Also, it seems that many people are unable -- or pretend to be unable -- to recognize obvious evidence of Jones' extreme bias, e.g.,
(1) -- saying in his Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions.
(2) -- letting the ACLU ghost-write the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section.
(3) -- statements he made on the PBS NOVA TV program about the case.
Jones has gotten a lot less hell about those things than he should have gotten.
< Last week she loaned $4 million to her campaign from her approximately $30 million net worth. Did Bill get that in speaking fees? >
Very likely -- it's one of the principal avenues currently for the channeling of baksheesh.
< Even the very conservative Bush has a believing Darwinist, Marburger, for a science advisor. >
A science advisor who understands science? I'm shocked, shocked! I tell you! (Nearly as shocked as I would be to learn that Bush was actually a conservative.)
BTW, Guinier and Cheney (sp).
>> members are selected based on their ability at NOT revealing information (re. Gonzalez, Mukasey, et al) <<
Oh, by all means, let us have staffers who bare their (and our) throats to the Democrats and Islamists.
> Also, it seems that many people are unable -- or pretend to be unable -- to recognize obvious evidence of Jones' extreme bias <
Perhaps Jones' bias is the King's new clothes. Only those biased themselves can see it.
e.g.,
> (1) -- saying in his Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. <
A distortion of what he said, as has been covered numerous times on this blog.
> (2) -- letting the ACLU ghost-write the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section. <
In other words, he followed common court procedure in using the material submitted by the winner. Larry, being a loser himself, wants Judge Jones to use the losing arguments in his decision.
> (3) -- statements he made on the PBS NOVA TV program about the case. <
Which showed that he came to a decision and is now supporting that decision. They showed no sign of bias.
Jones has gotten a lot more hell about those things than he should have gotten.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NEEDS A WHOLE REVISION.
I think that today almost the whole world could admit this diagnosis.
If you say that evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology, and that it is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence, I must agree. But I have to say that the most fundamental thing is to avoid the present confusion between “the fact of evolution” and “the theory of natural selection”.
As I see, today increases the number of American School Board’s resolutions urging the wording be changed to allow for balanced, objective and intellectually open instruction in regard to evolution, teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the Darwin's theory, rather than teaching it as dogmatic fact. I agree as well, because a true scientist will always allow any theory to be undermined by further scientific findings.
We should learn from the great scientists of the past. Did they follow one way of thinking on a problem? No. They looked at all sides of a problem and all possible iterations and developed their own well-reasoned solutions.
Following that same idea I have developed my own well-reasoned solutions. As a conclusion, I affirm that Darwin’s theory of evolution is at a very critical point. Thus, I’m one of the scientists who think that natural selection is an inadequate theory to explain the emergence and the evolution of the living beings.
If you are interested on the foundations of a new theory of evolution and ready to rethink some of the laws of physics and of biology, you are invited to visit the blog:
http://www.cosmosandgaia.blogspot.com (and the Spanish web linked to it)
There you can find some excerpts from the book “Cosmos y Gea. Fundamentos de una nueva teoría de la evolución” (Cosmos and Gaia. Foundations of a new theory of evolution). This book is not yet translated into English, but many people already have found it as an essential scientific issue, far beyond of the sterile and ideological controversy between Darwinism and creationism.
Post a Comment
<< Home