Future Bill In Florida Requires Teaching Intelligent Design

If this bill which is supposed to be introduced, this coming March 2009, and is passed into law, we will certainly see another Dover type case where a judge is going to decide what the science standards are. Special interests groups who are proponents of evolution, would like to see bills like these go away, never attempted again, after the 2005 court case which was about the validity of intelligent design being a science.

Currently, Florida’s public schools are moving on as normal even with this bill in the works…

“In classrooms, little has changed since the Board of Education’s evolution decision, said David Campbell, a science teacher at Orange Park’s Ridgeview High who helped write the new science standards. School districts will put them into practice over the next few years, giving students time to incorporate the knowledge as they take the science FCAT exam in 11th grade. In addition, textbooks need to be developed and paid for, and teachers need to be trained, though he wonders where the money will come from for that.”

Cottle called the controversy over evolution a “strange component in the culture wars.” He said he’s met biology teachers who are constantly challenged by students who refuse to accept evolution, which – far from being “just a theory” – is accepted by the vast majority of scientists.

“It’s like students have been put up to it by their pastors,” he said. “And I’m sure there are cases of religious students feeling harassed because they’re being asked to study this.” Jacksonville News

What does Cottle think, students are mindless or what? Is why some evolutionists want to teach weaknesses in evolution at the college level because they feel it wouldn’t affect them as much as at the lower grades? A poll conducted in the UK, said 51 percent did not believe in the theory of evolution, and out of those, only a small portion were churchgoers. So the vast opposition towards evolution in the UK is coming from secularists.

I applaud students who dare to question evolution. I don’t feel as though students are going to an assembly (church) where the Pastor decides this week or month, he”ll  have the members of the local assembly who are students display disbelief in evolution. What I do believe is happening, science is progressing, it’s finding things that gives the vast theories of evolution a problem, and it also points to a designer rather than naturalism. Students of the past never had such access to information as they do now. So instead of being force fed something they do not believe in, they stand up for what they believe in.

The bill should require teaching the weakness of all scientific theories including evolution. I understand requiring intelligent design, as a way to allure more students who are wary of evolution to a more acceptable (but not totally accepted) alternative.


12 thoughts on “Future Bill In Florida Requires Teaching Intelligent Design

  1. I live in Orlando and I hear the galloping sounds of horse hooves running down Colonial Ave. A man is shouting at the top of his lungs “the Darwinists are coming, the Darwinists are coming!!”.

  2. No Michael, judges have not decided what the science standards are (including the Dover case), they have decided that creationism is a religion, not science. That is quite a different thing.

    And your talk about ‘special interests groups’ is just silly. Evolution is a well-established, very successful theory, not some speciality of a few people.

    When are you going to answer some of my outstanding questions ? You claim to have no time, but that does not seem to be the case, judging your recent output.

  3. eelco2,

    In the Dover case in 2005, a judge did decide what the science standards were, he wrote an opinion about it. The defendant, the school was trying to present a case for ID being a science…So regardless if you agree with a Judge deciding those standards or not, it did happen. I don’t agree, a Judge should define science standards. But the Judge in the Dover case did decide if irreducible complexity was a valid scientific argument against evolution.


    Yea, I hear ya! lol

  4. Eh ? That is complete nonsense. The judge decided that creationism was not science (so it does not even qualify for whatever science standards you’d like to uphold, as it is not … science). He clearly said that because it was not science, it is unlawful to teach it in science class. And rightly so. You can obviously teach it in religion class.

    A judge will never make a statement about a particular scientific idea, that is ludicrous. He did not decide whether creationism makes valid scientific arguments, but whether it makes scientific arguments at all. It doesn’t.

    It is a religion, which is just fine. But be honest about that.

  5. I’ve just looked up the Dover trial decision again, on wikipedia (but you can find the full transcript on-line, of course):

    On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

    “For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child” (page 24)
    “A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.” (page 26)

    “The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism” (page 31)
    “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” (page 43)

    “Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree.” (footnote 7 on page 46)
    “After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.” (page 64)

    “[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case.” (pages 86–87)
    “ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.” (page 89)

    “Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.” (page 132)

    This is wikipedia’s summary, again feel free to look up the full 132 pages. But the conclusion is that this has nothing to do with setting science standards, but with sneaking religion into science education. Why no simply teach religion in religion class ? Is that so hard ?

  6. we already allow religion in science class, Darwinism.

    Why are Darwinists so afraid of critiquing the theory of evolution? Are they afraid that the kids might see through their fictitious ‘evidence’?

    Also, is it ok for a Judge to decide what is taught in a school classroom? I thought it was up to the parents and the board of education to decide that.

  7. Again, ‘Darwinism’ doesn’t exist, just like Newtonism or Einsteinism doesn’t exist, so it cannot be a religion. There is a theory of biological evolution, of course, that is just science, and working very well. And that is not a religion.

    So there are also no ‘Darwinists’ (I’m repeating myself), just as there are no ‘Newtonists’ or ‘Einsteinists’ or whatever.

    And of course there is lots of evidence for evolution. Kids are actually smart enough to see that (well, mine is …).

    Finally, a judge only decides according to the law, it is politicians making the law, so don’t blame the judge. If the law says you cannot teach religion in science class (which makes sense to me, just as you do not teach maths in english class), then the judge just says the same thing. The judge decides whether the board of education or the parents stick to the law, that’s all.

    Again, what is the problem with teaching religion in religion class ? Is that so hard ?

  8. eelco2,

    Wikipedia is biased, meaning it’s not a balanced news outlet. I’m aware of the rulling which is summed up by Judges Jones himself…

    “A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.”

    Prior to the case Judge Jones didn’t know even what intelligent design was, and still did not quite grasp all of it’s concepts in his conclusion, he just focused on one particular aspect. Basically according to Jones, intelligent design had to disprove evolution, and have the majority of the scientific community agree with it. If such burden of evidence was needed, and agreed upon, then the alternative should be primary and evolution shouldn’t be taught in the public schools.

    Intelligent Design is not a religion, specified complexity, or irreducible complexity is not found in any religious text. It also advocates not all things were intelligently designed either just mainly in the area of biology. What about it’s origin of what actually created the Universe including living animals, like evolution which doesn’t know what a species is, ID doesn’t know nor does it want to seek an explanation. Origins is historical science, not testable, we can’t go into the past and observe it and test it. One could “guess” what happened but that’s more like storytelling. ID will normally leave historical science to some evolutionary theory like how old the earth is or universe. The method used by ID proponents is called; reverse engineering which is not found in any religious text either. But it is something that is practice in such areas as medicine which of course you would deem as “science.” Education is not up to a Judge neither ruling on science standards but we will see another court battle (if the bill in Florida is passed) having a judge do the same thing like Dover and that is decide whether or not intelligent design is a science or not.

  9. Oh dear …. wikipedia is perfectly mainstream, it is not biased, but as I said you can also look up the full ruling if you like.

    ID is simply creationism in a new package, which is a religion. This is what most people think, including Judge Jones. And rightly so. Your example, irreducible complexity has no scientific merit. Again, have a look at http://www.talkorigins.org or similar for the full blurb, and examples of reducible complex organisms.

  10. eelco2,

    Unlike Darwinism (evolution), Newtonian physics wasn’t modified with a bunch of exceptions which made it very complex, when it’s predictions were wrong, rather it was replaced by another theory by Einstein. As far as the term, “Darwinism” it’s has been used quite often and yes, it does exist…

    The terms “Darwinian evolution” and “Darwinism” — used frequently by scientists, teachers and the media…Scientists have failed to let Darwin die, even as the theory he birthed grew up, some scientists now say. Evolutionary biology has evolved greatly since Darwin first generated the controversy with the 1859 publication of On the Origin of Species, and some think it’s time to divorce his name from the theory’s name…”

    Oh, then there is book called; “The Richness of Life” by Stephen Jay Gould. Do you know him? Some of the chapters in the book include; “Challenges to Neo-Darwinism and Their Meaning for a Revised View of Human Consciousness” and The Structure of Evolutionary Theory: Revising the Three Central Features of Darwinian Logic.”

    Yes, there are Darwinists, his hypothesis was updated many times over to what is called; Neo-Darwinism. And lastly, not all judges decide strictly on the law, but it’s interpretation of the law. The 1973 decision Roe vs Wade is a classic example.

    And one more point, would you say Professor Brooks Landon from the University of Iowa who teaches literature & English, was violating the law when he was teaching students how to build sentences by using this example, “God exists and created the world and the universe…” Again, I say do you believe he was breaking the law using a sentence based on Christianity or didn’t it matter because it wasn’t a science class?

    Sometimes I feel you pay too much attention to talking origins site when discussing your objections, that you tend to overlook various items.

  11. Evolution is not that complex, and if you think the changes made to Newton’s theory of gravity are simple, then sure, teach tensor fields and Christoffel symbols and all the rest, very simple indeed. Einstein did make gravity quite a bit more complex, but also more elegant at the same time (if you can get through the maths …).

    So who is talking about Newtonisms and Einsteinism then ?
    The fact that various people use the word “Darwinism” does not mean it is the right thing to do. I think it isn’t. Why all this obsession with the person of Darwin ? He was a great scientist, and should be honoured for that, but evolution has evolved quite a bit, just like Newton’s theory has evolved quite a bit.

    I wish you would pay more attention to http://www.talkorigins.org, as they simply present a database of common creationist misconceptions that have been rebunked elsewhere. You could look up the original sources, or go to the handy summary page (i.e. http://www.talkorigins.org). Feel free not to use that tool, but always try to find the source texts. It is referenced at http://www.talkorigins.org, but google helps too. Ah, of course they did some of the debunking themselves too …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s