According to this site
Florida defeated an attempt to pull ourselves out of the Victorian age:
House Bill 1483
Senate Bill 2692
“Ain’t no evolution in the Bible, boy!”
Actually, didn’t they defeat an attempt to go back to the Victorian age? The bill was anti-evolution, and defeated.
Also, didn’t they know about evolution for most of the Victorian Age. Origin of Species was published in 1859. I seriously can’t figure out if the OP is celebrating or disappointed that the anti-evolution measure failed.
I must be reading it wrong then. But one of the bills was to provide protection for teachers that taught evolution:
Or is it to prevent discrimination against those who try to present “Intellligent Design?”
The other bill seems to specify the teaching of Evolution:
Wait, isn’t “critical analysis” a good thing in science? Or was this the legislators not having a clue what they were saying?
I think that not only can the “proponents” couch this in terms of protecting “scientific freedom”, but that in reality it will mostly be used by ID children to whine when they are marked down for holding an ID view in the name of “being penalized for subscribing to a particular position on evolution”. And to protect teachers who choose to teach mostly ID in the guise of teaching material “critical of evolution”.
To be clear: I believe that the theory of evolution is correct and I applaud the critical analysis of all theories. That’s what makes them scientific. But it appears to me from a second reading that encouraging the teaching of evolution was the point of the bills and their defeat is a blow against education.
Ludovic, I think you’re right. A lot of crackpots exploit their constitutional right to be heard to the detriment of the rest of us.
Thus the flying spaghetti monster campaign, which lampoons this tactic by the ID folk.
The way I heard it, it was to allow teachers to present “theories” that point out the “flaws” in evolution, ie, are “critical” of evolution theory.
This is a win for science, but you wouldn’t know it by the wording of the legislation.
Well crap. Am I happy or outraged?
Florida will be underwater soon so the debate is moot.
Eh, just shrug it off and wait for the next thing to be outraged about. I’m sure something will be along any minute now.
I guess it depends on if you think ID should be taught in the classroom. Me, not so much, so I’m okay with the defeat.
Be happy. I’m pretty sure these were attempts to get ID into science class.
As far as actual critical analysis is concerned, I feel pretty confident that if any actual scientific criticisms arise (as opposed to “I personally don’t see how nature did it, hence nature could not have done it”) they will get addressed, eventually. It may be a slow process, but science does correct itself. Somehow we managed to stop teaching that personality traits of a person were determined by the bumps in the skull without legislation. (At least I hope we did…)
So, if on a Biology test, a student is presented with the question: Which era came first, the Jurassic or the Cretaceous period? The student could answer (correctly) with : neither period ever existed. God created the Earth 10,000 years ago
and this student wouldn’t suffer any ill effects from the answer?
If he can provide any valid evidence or data other than, “It’s in the bible” then I will consider it. Science is all about providing proof.
No science is about collecting evidence and creating testable hypotheses, which, if not falsified, become theories. It is never about proof.
The words “critical analysis” are a dead giveaway that the defeated proposal was a pro-ID one. There is plenty in dispute about the details of evolution, but at the level high school kids are going to get, there isn’t an awful lot of critical analysis that is valid.
I wonder if critical analysis of the critical analysis would have been protected by the bill. I wonder what would happen to a teacher telling kids that ID and Creationism were the purest bunkum. He or she would no doubt get charged with discriminating against them poor oppressed Christians again.
So nothing can ever be proven? Is it still just a theory that blood delivers oxygen to the cells of the body?
Actually, the state legislature is currently debating the merits of a bill which would allow Florida residents to evolve in the event of catastrophic flooding. As currently worded, the bill would exempt residents whose lungs expanded from prosecution, but a significant number of Democratic legislators have proposed widening its scope to include people who grow gills.
The bill, of course, is strongly opposed by the Republican majority, on the grounds that evolving is against God’s will. The strong tourism lobby also opposes it, since the widespread appearance of a race of creepy fish-men might result in a drop in both visitors and total tourism spending.
What if the oxygen is carried by invisible demons?
We’re talking the level of mathematical proof here. If you are using the definition of proof you find in the legal system, then plenty of stuff has been proven, but science tries to have a better success rate than that.
For instance, those accepting theistic evolution say that the process happened just as we see it, and we evolved from simian ancestors, but that God invisibly nudged things along so that we would be the product of evolution. There is no way of proving that is or isn’t the case.
This is a GD type nitpick, nothing all that crucial in everyday life.
Yeah, we are getting into GD here. But scientific theories at least try to be based on known facts. Trying to poke holes in theories is a good thing scientifically because it allows us to discard the ones that turn out to be false. Coincidentally, this is rather like evolution, but for concepts rather than organisms. Good science embraces such scepticism. But it’s highly unlikely that the ID folks are trying to contribute to science with their “critical analysis.”
In any case, if the defeat of these bills hinders the ID folks from meddling with sound science, then yay!