Senator Wise Evolution Bill
Senator Wise singles out evolution for critical analysis, but the real question is what is he really aiming for? The Sunshine State Standards ALREADY MANDATE that all science is critically evaluated and that includes evolution. Consider the standards as written:
Standard 1: The Practice of Science ...C: Scientific argumentation is a necessary part of scientific inquiry and plays an important role in the generation and validation of scientific knowledge.
Benchmark: SC.912.N.1.3 Recognize that the strength or usefulness of a scientific claim is evaluated through scientific argumentation, which depends on critical and logical thinking, and the active consideration of alternative scientific explanations to explain the data presented.
So it's right there in the Sunshine State Standards. Why do we need to single out evolution in a bill that includes a whole lot of hokey nonsense to make the true goal (teaching creationism) somehow more palatable. Consider too that the standards state very clearly:
Standard 15: Diversity and Evolution of Living Organisms A. The scientific theory of evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology. B. The scientific theory of evolution is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.
Benchmark: SC.912.L.15.1Explain how the scientific theory of evolution is supported by the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, biogeography, molecular biology, and observed evolutionary change.
Again examination of the evidence is mandated in the Science standards so Senator Wise is merely spending taxpayer money on a nonsensical bill that is really a stealth bill for getting religious ideas (HIS OWN RELIGIOUS IDEAS) into our classrooms! Don't we have more important things to worry about here in Florida, Senator Wise?
Cheers
Joe Meert
posted by Unknown @ 10:37 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Apparently, a similar bill is in the works in TN:http://www.memphisflyer.com/TheBruceVBlog/archives/2011/03/11/proposed-tn-bill-will-gut-teaching-of-evolution
Those wacky creotards never learn...
Hello, I am a 17 yr old high school student very much interested in science. As a Floridian I am aware of this bill, and these are my thoughts on the matter. This senator is accused of being a religious nut-job, but why? If evolution is only a theory, why should it be the only theory taught in school about the creation of life? Isn't that kind of like indoctrination?
Have a good day.
First thing (high school student) is that your science teacher should be fired. If by 17 you have not yet learned what the word 'theory' means, then your education has failed you. Secondly, have you read the bill? Wise doesn't ask that we examine 'alternate theories of gravity'. No request to teach 'alternates to germ theory of disease'. No request to teach 'alternatives to plate tectonic theory'. Why not? Is Wise advocating indoctrination into plate tectonics, germ theory and gravitational theory? Why is it ok to indoctrinate you in those theories, but not evolution? Wise is only about getting his religious viewpoint introduced in science classes. That's all and it's very clear from his 'bill' that this is about religious indoctrination and the first steps in the establishment of a theocracy in America.
When we define science as the search for truth, following the evidence wherever it leads, why should creationism necessarily be ruled out? If it is no threat to the scientific search, why should be it be banned or censored from the public curriculum? Indoctrination indeed should be avoided in the school environment. But one of the quintessential themes of indoctrination is excluding other avenues of evidence. Excluding creationism in favor of evolution is no less indoctrination than teaching both in the classroom. Besides, evolution has its scientific flaws, including the failure to explain the Cambrian explosion, the existence of irreducibly complex mechanisms in the cell, and evolution's failure to produce a complete fossil record showing the link from non-humanity to humanity. And to the claim that these fossils have not yet been found, the point must be brought up that such an argument is surely a "god of the gaps" theory, expecting that something that does not yet exist will exist to prove a theory. Teaching something that has not been disproven at the same time as teaching something that has not been definitely proven is in no way indoctrination; rather it is a balanced and well-reasoned education.
Cliff, good point. Creationism should not be necessarily ruled out 'a priori' and it might surprise you to know that it was not ruled out as an explanation in the 1800's. What happened is that creationists of the 1800's and later realized that creationism could not be reconciled with the rock record. Once scientists and clergy realized that creationism was useless as a scientific explanation, it was dropped. The fact that a few people cling to the explanation in the fear that real science will somehow threaten their faith is of no consequence. Once you welcome yourself to the 20th century, you won't feel so threatened.
Post a Comment
<< Home