My Clay Sun has published a report on the recent Clay County School Board meeting:
Despite impassioned opposition from science experts, teachers and some clergy, Clay County School Board members unanimously resolved Tuesday night that evolution should be presented as a theory, and not fact, in the classroom.
The board passed a resolution, proposed by Superintendent David Owens, asking the Florida Department of Education to reword its newly proposed state standards, which presents evolution as “the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence.”
The Baker County, Florida, School Board approved a similar resolution a month ago.
The Florida State Board of Education is scheduled to vote Feb. 19th on proposed changes to state science standards.
Creationists will likely continue their campaign that evolution is “just a theory”, and as such should not be presented as fact. Their argument is that unless a theory has been “proved”, it is no more valid than any other theory. They don’t realize – or choose not to acknowledge – that most theories in science have not been “proved”, and it’s not the purpose of science to provide dogmatic proof of anything.
Scientists will likely continue to get worked up and make compelling logical arguments that will go right over the Creationists’ heads. They’ll not accept that appeals to logic don’t work on those who have abandoned logic for faith.
Here are some links if you’d like to read more.
My Clay Sun report on the Clay County School Board resolution
Florida Today article on the upcoming State School Board vote
Florida Citizens for Science coverage of the issue
We need to decide how we’ll proceed …
@MrMiami
–
Sorry for the grammar and spelling, english is not my mother language
–
“by coindicence, is described by mathematics ” Of course here you are using irony. It’s not a coincidence, as mathematics is the language of science. Here we agree, the rest of your comments are the product of missunderstanding and missinformation. Let’s take the global warming part, were you have mixed a true and a big error:
–
“Let us take Global Warming for instance. The honest science regarding the warming of the Earth is that radiant energy from the Sun excites atmosheric molecules into heightened energy states. These excited molecules rotate, vibrate, and translate faster creating higher orders of heat content. At night, when the Sun is no longer bombarding the Earth with radiant energy, these molecules disipate their energy and return to a ground state or resident level of heat content.”
– yeah! that part is real, although seems to be unnecessary and your explanation is a little barroque
–
“The ‘would be’ correct science of Global Warming is that man has added such enormous levels of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that the innate resident heat of the atmosphere has increased because the composition of the atmosphere has changed to such an extent that it now retains more heat. ie the CO2 molecule is assumed to have a higher ground state heat content then Oxygen and Nitrogen. Thus, increasing atmospheric temperatures.”
–
This part is WRONG, or more, you are LYING in order to prove your point.
The fact here, is that the CO2 molecule get excited with the electromagnetic radiation that the Earth radiates. You could look at the wikipedia -it’s that easy.
The sun radiates energy, increasing Earth’s heat. All bodys at more temperature than 0ºK radiates energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation; specifically the Eath with larger wavelength than that of the sun. This radiation excites de CO2 molecule heating it. Is a fact well known that not all the molecules get excited with the same wavelenght -quantum physics. The N2 and the 02 don’t get excited with earth’s radiation. Thus, a relatively litlle increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can increase Earth’s mean temperature. Beeing your premises so wrong, i won’t give a coin for your calculations about our impact in the atmosphere’s composition.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami
–
we have seen you know nothing about thermodynamics. How can you speak of String theory knowing nothing about quantum physics? Also you are mixing sciences:
–
“Evolutionist teach that coal is a result of millions of years of peat build up in swamps.”
–
No, they don’t. That’s not a matter for biology, it’s geology. MV has well explained were you are wrong – so better than i could, i’m not a biologyst nor a geologist.
–
I’m a mathematician:
–
“Here is another mathematical problem – there is not enough time for the evolution revelation to evolve given current models. Sounds like evolution is having a difficult time passing its math test”
–
I suppose that’s another lie of yours. Of course, I should calculate by myself. I would need the probability for a mutation in human beings -wait, IDiots didn’t know anything about mutations-, and an estimation of the survival’s probability of that mutation in the poblation. I promise to evaluate this and post-it eventually -I need time.
In any case, that’s not a difficult test and I’m sure a lot of byologists have yet done -with positive outcome
–
“So MV when you remark that math does not prove or disprove anything I think you missed the point of mathematical ‘proofs’.”
–
Absolutely NOT. You missunderstanded what MV said, I assume you did it by error or on purpose. Math or logic prove or disprove given the premises are true. False premises can prove false consecuences.
–
So, your arguments are wrong, mixed with sciences that you don’t understand -you are trying to seem very sage, we are not that silly- and thus you get to false conclusions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiamy
–
(I promise is the last one I psot here for today, sorry!)
–
“MV, your science is really messed up as is your cosmological views”
– I don’t know how is the science of MV, say MVlogy, but I’m sure is far less messed up than yours
“You need to study multiple theologies and cosmologies in comparison.”
–
No, we needn’t. We can study cosmology. Theology only can be studied as part of sociology or history
–
“You need to be able to properly divide science and cosmological revelations”
–
I can’t see why, but are you saying that cosmology is not part of science? Sure, you mean astrology
:-p
–
“Origin has nothing to do with science.”
–
Uff… origin has “nothing” to do with evolution, science is coming closer to origin everyday. Science has nothing to do about “why the FSM ceated us” – why we are here, if this question has any sense.
–
“However, science can be use to reconcile cosmological and theological revelation just as archeology confirms historical accounts”
–
Well, archeology confirms some historical accounts. I can see your point, but not, the Bible is not an historical account, sorry. Archeology has disproved many of his points. Of course, we Know the FSM is changing the data.
Yeah, I wonder what has to say the bible about cosmology…mmm…earth is a circle? -not a sphere- the sun rotates around the earth? It says that the other stars are also suns? Anything of relativity?
You mean that the Bible -God’s word- can be tergiversed -is that not a sin?- to seem not to be so wrong.
–
May his noodly appendage touch you
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
News from Florida, according to a news article yesterday, the state board of education approved the new science standards which indicate evolutionary theory is a key concept in the biological sciences. This was great news to 99.9% of Biologists. The observable facts, the empirical evidence, all have done nothing but support evolutionary theory. The fossil record, which is far from complete and never will be complete, provides overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory. Creationists are very good at PR, and they are very good at ignoring the evidence to support their view that evolution is somehow a theory in crisis. While I know that this is only a small victory, and I have no doubt those who think that religion is science will find a new place to wage their war, I will take solace in this victory for today at least. To all the pro ID and pro-creationists out there here is my suggestion to you; until you can provide a testable, disprovable, hypothesis and evidence to support it keep your faith in your church and keep science in the science class room.
`
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok guys!!!! I heard it on the radio this morning (sorry I’ve been MIA– just closed on my first house, FSM be praised!) Evolution will be taught as science but must be referred to as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution” and classes will allow debate about this topic so our young Pastafarians can argue that evolution is CRAP and the world was created by the FSM. I consider this a moderate victory. Now back to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even an atheist is easily fooled if he/she/it believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. His Big Bang Theory doesn’t hold even a drop of water. His idea that there was no life before the big bang and the complete idiocy that the grand daddy of all explosions occurred and created the earth from nothing but dust particles and all life form, trees, plants, grass, fish, fowl, animals, and human beings,(not to be confused as animals) proves to me that the man was a complete imbecile. It also proves that all of his followers have the same extremely low caliber of intellectual capabilities to think for themselves. Just humor me and ask yourselves a couple of questions. Have you ever seen an explosion that created life? On the contrary, explosions destroy life. Where did these gases and dust particles come from to cause this big bang? All of the elements needed for this big bang were already in existence,(created), so you are led to believe that Creationism provided all of the elements to prove that Creationism is not only a fact but the only conceivable valid explanation. I am amazed at how many hypocrites have the audacity to say that they believe in God when they don’t even believe His Word. It is total nonsense to accept the idea that God did create everything through evolution. Darwin was merely one of many of Satan’s pawns that he used to cause people to believe that God did not create the universe and life. When one accepts that line of thinking, they have decided that there is no God. Thus, Satan’s work is accomplished. In the last several decades it has become more and more ‘not socialy acceptable’ to believe in God and that He did everything that He said He did, including His provision of an extremely ‘uncool’ eternal environment for ALL of those who do not believe Him but also obey His commandments. Think about it, did Darwin’s theory vs Intelligent Design = Unintelligent Design vs Intelligent Design.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@at mr miami
I did look into the mater of sudden carbonification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous_Period
it apears that there was flooding that caused it and that there are alot of fossils from these particular sites and periods.
But your conclusion that a lack of abundance in all periods would mean that the theory of evolution i false does not make sense.
.
“The fewer fossil records in other geologic layers indicate that millions of years of evolution are not at work. In fact, it offers no record at all of evolution.”
.
you only need two points to establish a change. As far as I understand we have several: each carbonification period and present time.
You can’t possibly object to that life has changed since then
you cant deside exactly when change has happen but that is not nessecary, just that a change has happened. You must then find an alternative way that species change and make it more possible than evolution or else (most likely) evolution stays
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami.
I must admit there was plenty of lowlands covered with water in the coarboniferous period. I just don’t see any geological data that indicates a monster flood.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
But wait is that his noodlyness lurking in the swamps.
LOP P-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all
.
I need to complete my thoughts on Item 2 Increasing Content in my last post. While the atoms always return to a ground state the only way atmospheric heat content can increase is by adding enormous qualities such that the CO2 atoms overwhelm the nitrogen (~78%) and oxygen (~21%) heat content. If the amount of CO2 necessary to achieve tmeperature increases reduces the oxygen content below 19% oxygen then humans have a greater problem than global warming.
.
One point of the Global warming exercise is to see the various sciences and perspectives that human put on things that are not always pure science. Evolution has the same problems. It is a battle of ideologies that influence science rather than science influencing the ideologies.
.
It is unfortunate that pliable minds are indoctrinated into wild the thoughts of pre-existing humans rather than allowed to develop into independent thinkers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm…interesting
“MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION [version: 9/7/2007]
This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.
“A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT….
BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:
Section 1. This law shall be known as the “Academic Freedom Act.”
Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.”
http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php
Surely such an act would be an opening to allow FSM theory to be taught along side evilution and bibble creationism!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
MrMiami Feb 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
“I am for one skeptical that there is this finding so far away from our solar system that it is almost conveniently out of reach. I would like to review the data myself and repeat the experiment by other researchers. There needs to be a consensus.”
.
Oh…so you think maybe these astronomers are involved in some massive conspiracy to promote awareness of His Noodlyness?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Starbuckaneer Feb 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am
“Evolution will be taught as science but must be referred to as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution”
.
By specifying it as “The Scientific Theory of Evolution”, students will no doubt be required to learn the correct definition for a Scientific Theory! Good show :) I noticed they also added the Scientific Theory term to : The Scientific Theory of Cells, The Scientific Theory of Atoms, The Scientific Theory of plate tectonics and the Theory of Electromagnetism.
.
http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=478
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@all:
.
Alot of responses. I’ll review and get back.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David T Jones you are the one that is a fool. Darwin didn’t develop the Big Bang Theory. Actually it was based on the observations from Edwin Hubble that the universe was expanding and Fred Hoyle was the first to coin the phrase. Also, evolution has nothing to do with origin. Creationism as you put it is not fact. There is no proof. .
.
It may be very easy for someone like you to say God must have done it because you don’t understand something. That is why scientist continue to look for answers, it is to easy to give up and say God did it. To say Darwin was one of Satan’s pawns just further supports that you come across as one of the Christian fundamentalist lunatics. So no one in their right mind could give any credence to the crap you put out since you don’t know what the Theory of Evolution is, you don’t know anything about the Big Bang Theory and you believe there is a Satan. No hypocrites here. We don’t pretend to follow one set of ideas then forget them when we feel like them, unlike most the Christian whack jobs that come here and act the opposite of what the Bible teaches.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To David Jones,
`
I would like to first inform you that Darwin had NOTHING to do with the “Big Bang Theory.” The Big Bang Theory was postulated by astronomers and physicists 50 to 100 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution was posted. The big bang theory does not say life was created by this explosion, in fact it deals with things going on several billion years before the earth was even formed. Now I am sorry if a book which didn’t see its final compilation determined till approximately 1500 years ago, had a huge number of texts rejected by the church, and which has been translated countless times over the millenia doesn’t really come off as evidence to me. You and others claim that the rational mind should reject science in favor of the “word of god” and yet the word of god has been interpreted by, had parts rejected by, and was written by people. Look up the history of the ecumenical councils where the Roman Catholic church debated and argued which texts should make it into the cannon, what you will find is a huge number of texts which were rejected. Why were these texts any less the word of god then the ones the councils decided to include? The fact is that every single word in the bible, or any other holy book for that matter, was written by a PERSON if not multiple PEOPLE. You can claim that they were divinely inspired but you can no more prove that then I can prove that they weren’t. Regardless they were written by mortal hands and, as you well know, humans are inperfect and can make mistakes. Is it not possible then that the writers misunderstood? A poem called “The Word of God” puts it best ” The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the bible; God wrote the world.”
~
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have nothing further given my responses are not being posted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@MrMiami, @all:
Let me first apologize sincerely to you (MrMiami) personally and to the readership of the thread in general. My last post was petty and obnoxious, and, FWIW, I do apologize. Pastafarian ideals are at least as high as Christian ideals (except during piratical activities, such as raiding parties, carousing with Wenches, etc.) and my lapse was inexcusable and un-Pastafarian.
However, lest I appear too abject, let me repeat my objection more quantitatively. I did search for EPA data and found two related sites:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html
Both sites quote annual emission numbers of the order of 5000 Tg of CO2 for the US only. My arithmetic – and I will be happy to be corrected – is that 1000 Tg (10^15 g) is identical to 1 metric gigaton. Interestingly, the emission numbers are fairly close to what you would estimate by converting the annual US energy consumption of 10^20 J (equivalent to about 15 horsepower per capita) into chocolate eclairs at 10 food calories/gram. I think your EPA quote is an order of magnitude too low…..
And I hate to argue much about your version of global warming dynamics anyway. I think I’d like to hear you debate someone who had actually looked hard at the details of energy transport (including radiation) in the ocean/atmosphere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Pope Murgatroyd:
.
My Global warming discussion was an illustration to show that there are three sciences to the issues and two of them are incorrect sciences. The same problem plagues origin issues. There are incorrect sciences in order to promote a belief about origin. In the case of evolution, the early science is flawed (randomness among other phenomenon are not naturalistic) then buried in the other arguments built off of the incorrect understanding.
.
In the case of Intelligent Design, the Christians often do not have a meaningful grasp of the science or are able to meaningfully reconcile it with the Bible. They throw out simplistic answers usually coupled with a verse. In their view God Created the science but cannot use the science effectively to argue their point. In the case, of ‘Answers in Genesis’ group they talk to the wrong audience which is the common problem. I reviewed their DvD set.
.
I have that Chuck Missiler at http://www.Khouse.org is much better at discussing technical topics and reconciling it with the Bible.
.
Creationist, who are not Intelligent Design proponents, act more like “Answers In Genesis” than they do as rational thinkers of ID.
.
Clearly, at least in my mind ID is the middle ground but few people have a adequate grasp of math, science, and ID.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0