"Creationist" Floridian seeks US Senate seat
The popular Little Green Footballs blog and Fatheaded Ed Brayton have called former Florida House Speaker Mario Rubio, who is challenging Florida Governor Charlie Christie in the primary election for the Republican nominee for a Florida seat in the US Senate, a "creationist." [link] [link] A news article last year reported Rubio's reaction to the new Florida state standards for science education:
I disagree with Rubio's statement that he doesn't "want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong." Depending on the circumstances, I think it is OK for public schools to do this.
It is not clear whether Rubio is really a "creationist" -- he might just merely be in favor of "academic freedom" to teach scientific criticisms of evolution in public schools. I think that evolution should be taught in the public schools but I also feel that scientific -- or pseudoscientific (I added that for the benefit of the Darwinists who keep moaning that there are no scientific criticisms of evolution) -- criticisms of evolution should also be taught in the public schools. And the following recent additions to the Florida state science standards really need to be removed:
(1) -- the statement that evolution is "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." That statement simply is not true. In fact, in a recent national survey of science teachers, 13% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that an "excellent" biology course could exist that does not mention Darwin or evolution at all, and even I don't agree with that statement.
(2) -- defining scientific theories as "well-supported" and "widely accepted." That's ridiculous -- there are strong scientific theories and weak scientific theories. No standard dictionary that I have seen defines scientific theories in that way. Darwinists are creating confusion by coming up with new definitions of "scientific theory" just to suit the Darwinist agenda.
IMO the above two statements in the new Florida standards definitely "mock" and "deride" what some parents tell their kids about evolution and creationism. The Darwinists seem to have the badly mistaken idea that a ruling by a crackpot activist judge in Pennsylvania gave them carte blanche to nationally tyrannize our public schools by means of dogmatic teaching of evolution.
I am particularly sensitive about the evolution controversy in Florida because the so-called Florida Citizens for Science blog has banned my arguments about coevolution. [link] [link]
I have no idea where Rubio's opponent in the primary, Gov. Charlie Crist, stands on evolution education. I hope that evolution education will be an issue in Florida's primary and main elections for the US Senate.
.
TALLAHASSEE (FBW) – An evolution compromise approved on Feb. 19 [2008] by the State Board of Education was the best that could be achieved in that body but legislative action to protect academic freedom of teachers offering criticisms of Darwinian evolution is possible, House Speaker Marco Rubio told Florida Baptist Witness in a Feb. 20 interview.
Rubio said the Board of Education’s addition of “scientific theory of” before each reference to “evolution” in new science standards for Florida’s public schools was “the best fix available” with “the way those votes were lining up.”
Although he and other House leaders supported the theory compromise in a Feb. 19 letter to members of the Board of Education, Rubio said critics who believe explicit language protecting academic freedom is necessary “may be right.”
At the Feb. 19 BOE meeting, opponents of the science standards uniformly opposed the theory compromise, arguing instead for an “Academic Freedom Proposal” which would have added a clause to the standards permitting teachers “to engage students in a critical analysis” of Darwinian evolution.
John Sullivan, executive director-treasurer of the Florida Baptist Convention, in a Feb. 17 letter urged the BOE to oppose the theory compromise in light of the standards’ “silence about teaching scientific criticisms of evolution.”
Sullivan said both strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution should be taught and said the standards should “honor and encourage the academic freedom of teachers and students on an issue of fundamental importance and ongoing scientific controversy.”
Asked if the legislature would be open to academic freedom legislation, Rubio told the Witness, “I think so. Sure. Well, I think the Florida House would. I can’t speak for the Senate.”
Although a vote count had not been taken on the issue, “we may have sufficient votes on that in the Florida House,” he added.
Rubio said there also could be activity in the legislature by evolution proponents who wish to remove the theory compromise language.
“I think there’s still going to be folks out there talking about this – on both sides. … I think this will be a battle that will go on for quite some time,” he said.
The “crux” of the disagreement, according Rubio, is “whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?”
Rubio added, “And for me, personally, I don’t want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong.”
I disagree with Rubio's statement that he doesn't "want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong." Depending on the circumstances, I think it is OK for public schools to do this.
It is not clear whether Rubio is really a "creationist" -- he might just merely be in favor of "academic freedom" to teach scientific criticisms of evolution in public schools. I think that evolution should be taught in the public schools but I also feel that scientific -- or pseudoscientific (I added that for the benefit of the Darwinists who keep moaning that there are no scientific criticisms of evolution) -- criticisms of evolution should also be taught in the public schools. And the following recent additions to the Florida state science standards really need to be removed:
(1) -- the statement that evolution is "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology." That statement simply is not true. In fact, in a recent national survey of science teachers, 13% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that an "excellent" biology course could exist that does not mention Darwin or evolution at all, and even I don't agree with that statement.
(2) -- defining scientific theories as "well-supported" and "widely accepted." That's ridiculous -- there are strong scientific theories and weak scientific theories. No standard dictionary that I have seen defines scientific theories in that way. Darwinists are creating confusion by coming up with new definitions of "scientific theory" just to suit the Darwinist agenda.
IMO the above two statements in the new Florida standards definitely "mock" and "deride" what some parents tell their kids about evolution and creationism. The Darwinists seem to have the badly mistaken idea that a ruling by a crackpot activist judge in Pennsylvania gave them carte blanche to nationally tyrannize our public schools by means of dogmatic teaching of evolution.
I am particularly sensitive about the evolution controversy in Florida because the so-called Florida Citizens for Science blog has banned my arguments about coevolution. [link] [link]
I have no idea where Rubio's opponent in the primary, Gov. Charlie Crist, stands on evolution education. I hope that evolution education will be an issue in Florida's primary and main elections for the US Senate.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/11/2009 10:11:00 PM
11 Comments:
Out of the last six articles there has been only one with comments. Those only displayed your inability to answer a simple question. It looks like you are slipping further and further into irrelevance. I suppose you will soon just disappear which will give further proof of evolution.
>>>>>> Out of the last six articles there has been only one with comments. <<<<<<<
You despicable dunghill, most of the submitted comments were rejected (as yours should have been) because of failure to follow my simple, very liberal rules:
(1) -- no comments containing nothing but scoffing
(2) -- no lying about objective facts -- e.g., saying that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually told the newspaper that the results of the school board elections would not affect his decision. BTW, that does not even follow as a logical consequence -- if the new school board had decided to repeal the ID policy prior to release of his decision, the school board election results would definitely have affected his decision because he would have had to respond in some way to that repeal.
(3) -- no gossip about private affairs.
No commenters are banned -- all comments are considered on a case-by-case basis.
"saying that Judge Jones told a newspaper that he was going to follow the law when he actually told the newspaper that the results of the school board elections would not affect his decision."
If he had taken into account the school board elections he would not be following the law. Of course there would be other ways of not following the law.
>>>>>> If he had taken into account the school board elections he would not be following the law. <<<<<<
Wrong. If the newly elected school board had repealed the ID policy prior to judgment, he would have been forced to take that repeal into account -- the election results would definitely then have affected his decision. So he had no control over whether or not the election results would affect his decision.
Also, in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), the Supreme Court made a ruling that the Darwinists said could never happen: in a case of "voluntary cessation" in which the government repealed the challenged policy prior to judgment, the court not only declared the case to be moot but also rejected the so-called "catalyst theory" by denying a reward of attorney fees to the plaintiffs (according to the "catalyst theory," the plaintiffs are entitled to attorney fees in cases of voluntary cessation because the lawsuit likely caused the voluntary cessation).
And the issue here is what Judge Jones actually told the newspaper, not some interpretation of the implications of what he told the newspaper. And the reason for the continued insistence that he told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law -- and the continued denial that he actually told the newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision -- was to avoid my charges that he improperly was giving legal advice to the new school board. By saying that the election results would not affect his decision, he was implicitly telling the new school board, "don't bother repealing the ID policy, because it is not going to do you any good." A claim that he was giving "good advice" is like the March Hare's claim at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party that putting butter in a watch is OK so long as it is the "best" butter.
The troll who said that Judge Jones told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law was just trying to sabotage this blog by cluttering it up with breathtakingly inane garbage.
Thanks; you've just convinced me not to donate my hard-earned money to Rubio's campaign.
*Sigh* Too bad -- he's better, overall, than Charlie Crist (SP!). Damn!
> The troll who said that Judge Jones told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law was just trying to sabotage this blog by cluttering it up with breathtakingly inane garbage.<
Or perhaps he was just giving his interpretation, as you just did.
You stupid dunghill, I already responded with a long comment explaining that this is a matter of objective fact, not just interpretation. The troll refused to acknowledge what Judge Jones actually told the newspaper and I explained why he refused to acknowledge it. And even if the troll's interpretation were correct, Jones still improperly gave legal advice to the new school board.
Now you are starting to clutter up this blog with breathtaking inanity.
What exactly did Jones say? Closest I've been able to find to his actual words is the following:
He considers only what has been offered for the record and won't take into consideration news accounts or that a new Dover Area school board has been elected since the trial.
Seems to me that he's saying "if you change the ID policy, you better let me know, because I'm not reading the papers or assuming you're changing the policy just because you ousted the old board"
Since a judge isn't supposed to base his ruling on what is in the paper or a change in board members, it seems to me he was telling the paper that he was going to follow the law, by saying what the law said he couldn't do.
if the new school board had decided to repeal the ID policy prior to release of his decision, the school board election results would definitely have affected his decision because he would have had to respond in some way to that repeal.
So according to you, if the old board had decided to repeal the policy before the election, it would definitely not have affected his decision because he wouldn't have had to respond in some way to that repeal? That's asinine.
It was not my intention to get into another argument as to whether or not Judge Jones improperly gave implicit legal advice to the school board. I was just trying to show that some lousy disgusting troll tried to avoid that question by insisting that Jones only told the newspaper that he was going to follow the law.
>>>>>>> What exactly did Jones say? Closest I've been able to find to his actual words is the following:
He considers only what has been offered for the record and won't take into consideration news accounts or that a new Dover Area school board has been elected since the trial. <<<<<<
No one knows exactly what Jones said, because the newspaper only paraphrased him. The statement I saw was that he said that the election results would not affect his decision. Where did you get the above statement?
Anyway, as I said, he had no control over whether or not the election results would affect his decision because the new school board might have repealed the ID policy before release of the decision and he would have had to make some response to that repeal.
>>>>>> So according to you, if the old board had decided to repeal the policy before the election, it would definitely not have affected his decision because he wouldn't have had to respond in some way to that repeal? That's asinine.<<<<<<
WHAAAT? I was talking about the new school board -- not the old school board -- repealing the ID policy. The new school board members had campaigned against the ID policy. And he would have had to respond in some way whether the new school board or the old school board repealed the ID policy prior to release of the decision.
Anyway, I have already explained all these things and more above.
>>>>And he would have had to respond in some way whether the new school board or the old school board repealed the ID policy prior to release of the decision.<<<<<
If he would have to respond either way, the results of the election would not effect his decision, unless he were to treat the new board differently than the old board.
>>>>>> If he would have to respond either way, the results of the election would not effect his decision, unless he were to treat the new board differently than the old board. <<<<<<<
You lousy dunghill, I said that I did NOT want to get into another argument over the question of whether Judge Jones improperly gave implicit legal advice to the school board. I was only pointing out that some troll tried to avoid that question by repeatedly lying about what Judge Jones told the newspaper.
It was believed that the new board members were more inclined than the old board members to repeal the ID policy prior to release of the decision, because the new board members (1) had campaigned against the ID policy per se and (2) had campaigned against the potential costs of the lawsuit. So yes, Judge Jones did have reason to "treat the new board differently from the old board" -- he had more reason to try to discourage the new board from repealing the ID policy prior to release of the decision, and saying that the election results would not affect his decision could be interpreted as telling the new school board, "don't bother repealing the ID policy prior to release of the decision, because it is not going to do you any good."
Post a Comment
<< Home