Still more Florida news
(1) Orangeman video
Short enough for my dial-up connection but took a few minutes to load.
(2) The proposed science standards may be viewed here.
(3)Volusia County school board members were interviewed about the proposed standards. Their statements have been interpreted as supporting the proposed state standards but they mostly did not expressly state support for the wording of the proposed state standards -- the board members mostly just said things like, "religion should be taught at home," "evolution should be taught in school," and "I'll support whatever decision the state board of education makes." The Florida Citizens for Science knows of only one Florida County school board, Monroe County's, that has actually passed a resolution supporting the proposed standards as written; about a dozen county school boards have passed resolutions opposing the proposed standards as written. Another county school board, Bay County's, passed a resolution opposing the proposed standards as written. The Bay County resolution was different from many or all of the others -- it recommends that the state science standards be reworded 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.” Many or all of the other county school board resolutions said something like "evolution should not be presented in a manner that excludes other theories of the origin of life." I prefer Bay County's resolution. The Putnam County school board is scheduled to discuss on Feb. 19 -- the day of the state board's decision -- a resolution regarding the state science standards; the school board's agenda does not say whether the resolution supports or opposes the proposed standards and does not say whether any action will be taken on the resolution, and any action will almost certainly be too late to affect the state board's decision.
(4) Feb. 11 was supposed to be the date of the last public oral hearing, but the state board of education decided to hear one more hour of public testimony at the meeting on Feb. 19, when the decision on the proposed state science standards is scheduled to be made. Info is here.
Hearing public testimony on Feb. 19 is unfair to those who have already testified at previous oral hearings. Many of those who have already testified at oral hearings went to a lot of time and trouble to testify. Some traveled hundreds of miles and some took time off from work. Their testimony is now going to be drowned out by new public testimony at the Feb. 19 meeting of the state board of education. Of course, these people who have already testified can go to the time and trouble of appearing at the Feb. 19 meeting but they might not get a chance to testify — the maximum number of public speakers is 20. Maybe what the board of education should do instead is just make a tentative decision on the proposed state standards and then have a public comment period for that decision. I think that in general, administrative agencies and the courts -- especially the Supreme Court -- should initially issue tentative decisions and then have public comment periods for them.
(5) The state board of education is considering adding the term "theory" or "scientific theory" to the evolution education standards. This Darwinist article moans that this might be too big a concession to the fundies. The state legislature is breathing down the neck of the state board of education, threatening to add "theory" if the board does not.
(6) A Florida newspaper took a poll of public opinion about evolution and evolution education. I don't understand why the circle graph for the question "which of these do you think should be taught in public schools?" shows results only for respondents with school-age children. Also, the margin of error for this circle graph is likely to be large because of a small sample size. Anyway, it looks like the Darwinist tail is trying to wag the dog.
(7) A graph on this webpage grossly exaggerates the differences by using 270 as the base of the graph. Also, the number of green counties -- only two (should be only one because only Monroe County actually passed a resolution supporting the proposed state science standards as written) -- is much too small to yield a statistically significant result.
.
Short enough for my dial-up connection but took a few minutes to load.
(2) The proposed science standards may be viewed here.
(3)Volusia County school board members were interviewed about the proposed standards. Their statements have been interpreted as supporting the proposed state standards but they mostly did not expressly state support for the wording of the proposed state standards -- the board members mostly just said things like, "religion should be taught at home," "evolution should be taught in school," and "I'll support whatever decision the state board of education makes." The Florida Citizens for Science knows of only one Florida County school board, Monroe County's, that has actually passed a resolution supporting the proposed standards as written; about a dozen county school boards have passed resolutions opposing the proposed standards as written. Another county school board, Bay County's, passed a resolution opposing the proposed standards as written. The Bay County resolution was different from many or all of the others -- it recommends that the state science standards be reworded 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.” Many or all of the other county school board resolutions said something like "evolution should not be presented in a manner that excludes other theories of the origin of life." I prefer Bay County's resolution. The Putnam County school board is scheduled to discuss on Feb. 19 -- the day of the state board's decision -- a resolution regarding the state science standards; the school board's agenda does not say whether the resolution supports or opposes the proposed standards and does not say whether any action will be taken on the resolution, and any action will almost certainly be too late to affect the state board's decision.
(4) Feb. 11 was supposed to be the date of the last public oral hearing, but the state board of education decided to hear one more hour of public testimony at the meeting on Feb. 19, when the decision on the proposed state science standards is scheduled to be made. Info is here.
Hearing public testimony on Feb. 19 is unfair to those who have already testified at previous oral hearings. Many of those who have already testified at oral hearings went to a lot of time and trouble to testify. Some traveled hundreds of miles and some took time off from work. Their testimony is now going to be drowned out by new public testimony at the Feb. 19 meeting of the state board of education. Of course, these people who have already testified can go to the time and trouble of appearing at the Feb. 19 meeting but they might not get a chance to testify — the maximum number of public speakers is 20. Maybe what the board of education should do instead is just make a tentative decision on the proposed state standards and then have a public comment period for that decision. I think that in general, administrative agencies and the courts -- especially the Supreme Court -- should initially issue tentative decisions and then have public comment periods for them.
(5) The state board of education is considering adding the term "theory" or "scientific theory" to the evolution education standards. This Darwinist article moans that this might be too big a concession to the fundies. The state legislature is breathing down the neck of the state board of education, threatening to add "theory" if the board does not.
(6) A Florida newspaper took a poll of public opinion about evolution and evolution education. I don't understand why the circle graph for the question "which of these do you think should be taught in public schools?" shows results only for respondents with school-age children. Also, the margin of error for this circle graph is likely to be large because of a small sample size. Anyway, it looks like the Darwinist tail is trying to wag the dog.
(7) A graph on this webpage grossly exaggerates the differences by using 270 as the base of the graph. Also, the number of green counties -- only two (should be only one because only Monroe County actually passed a resolution supporting the proposed state science standards as written) -- is much too small to yield a statistically significant result.
.
Labels: Evolution education (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 2/16/2008 06:44:00 AM
9 Comments:
Maybe that Orangeman video should be called "The Oranges of Species." LOL
The beginning and ending words of that message are too far apart.
The St. Petersburg Times has a new poll that shows that only 22% of the people of Florida want to teach "evolution only" in the public schools.
The definitions aren't adequate: evolution is defined simply as human descent from lower animals. But the Darwinists are trying to teach descent by random mutations and natural selection, specifically.
They also use a poor definition of "intelligent design." But the poll certainly shows very little support for the proposed new policy. 50% of the people want to teach either creationism only, or "intelligent design" only, as the poll defines those terms.
Perhaps the people will rebel against the Darwinists...
They probably showed results for those with school age kids because they would be the most involved and interested. But the results for the full sample are available, and they aren't much different.
Jim Sherwood said...
>>>>> They probably showed results for those with school age kids because they would be the most involved and interested. <<<<<<
I disagree -- the fight over evolution education has become a proxy war in the general controversy over evolution. The Darwinists have become ever more brazen in their efforts to brainwash students into believing the myth that Darwinism is the grand central unifying principle of biology, but the Darwinists are doomed to failure because the controversy has become so big that they can never succeed in doing that.
So, are you adopting the "orangeman" as your spokesman or mascot or theoretician or what?
I'd say the fundies are the ones being brazen for they are the ones resorting to dishonesty, lies, and other tactics contrary to their own religious principles in creating this whole farce of a controversy and trying to push their poorly disguised religious agendas under the "alternatives to evolution" garbage.
If 22% want evolution in public schools, it probably means ~78% don't. And I'm sure a significant portion of that ~78% would want ID/creationism to be taught instead, but we both know that there is a system in place to protect that 22% from being subjected to forced religious indoctrination by that ~78%. LAWYERS BE PRAISED!
Jim Sherwood said...
The St. Petersburg Times has a new poll that shows that only 22% of the people of Florida want to teach "evolution only" in the public schools.
Since when was the validity of any scientific theory determined by public opinion?
All this shows is the woeful state of science education in Florida, and that the ignorant are too, well ignorant, to even see that they are lacking.
Larry Fafarman said...
the fight over evolution education has become a proxy war in the general controversy over evolution.
Wrong again Larry. Those are the Discovery Institute's talking points you've confused for facts.
Actually, the 'controversy over evolution' is a notion contrived by that crew to portray evolution as a "theory in crisis" in order to replace the "materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The 'controversy over evolution' is nothing more than a stalking horse for a conservative Christian attempt to reinsert their notion of God into science which they see as atheistic. A point the Dover trial ruling made clear.
Post a Comment
<< Home