Florida evolution showdown – part 2

Published January 20th, 2008 by Bobby Henderson


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 …


170 Responses to “Florida evolution showdown – part 2”

  1. MrMiami says:

    EMPIRICAL means it can be observed. Use your eyes. This is a good starter for sources.
    I did not get my discussion from one of your defunct resources.
    The BraneWorld model is an outcome of 9 theories, string theory being one and relativity another, Edward Whitten mathematically combined to in order to develop a unified theory. It is 10 dimensions and when conformally mapped into three dimensions so humans can see what it looks like, it has globes and membranes. Each globes or world is theoretically a universe of its own. The movie ‘TimeLine’ was written about the Brane-World model. Each World was a different instance in time in the movie and people could take adventure trips and vacations to other worlds. Even the movie the Matrix attempted, albeit very poorly, to incorporate elements of the Brane-World model.
    String theory is NOT 10 dimensions. String theory is about wave mechanics of violently vibrating and ultra-thin strings that are sometimes close looped harmonics and other times open ended harmonics. These strings occur in the Planckian realm or below. When a bunch of them come together in a compactness process not yet understood they form a particle. Hence, the particle-wave theory of light.
    MV, your science is really messed up as is your cosmological views. You need to study multiple theologies and cosmologies in comparison. You need to be able to properly divide science and cosmological revelations. Science Only deals with complexity and order- nothing more. Origin has nothing to do with science. However, science can be use to reconcile cosmological and theological revelation just as archeology confirms historical accounts. Perhaps you should actually study in somewhere that is not pushing a political or cosmological agenda. OOPS! I forgot you are just another brick in the wall. You are one of those independent non-conforming American Sceintist who wears blue jeans, tennis shoes, and looks like everyone of the other bricks. Your schools are brainwashing you with hogwash. I have seen it first hand and even listened to them spew untruths about things I have actually been involved with. Even the teachers cannot see beyond thier own noses. Watch the PBS special ‘Evolution: What About God’ and see how far those science-philosophy teachers are from the science they allegedly espouse.
    The schools need to teach people how to learn and study – how to be an independent thinker. The schools got to get out of this mindset of TELLING students something who then take notes and are tested on their note taking. Discovering how to learn and study makes life more exciting than debating people over thier half baked ideas of reality or science.
    I have lived in South Florida for some time. Despite winning awards for being terrific schools, I have seen the enormous idiocy the schools turn out. I have spoken to many young folks who have no understanding of history, mathematics, science, or the arts. Michelangelo in a mutant turtle to them. They can play sports well and usually been with ‘someone’ sexually by time they graduate. The sad thing is they are being mislead – most likely for political purposes. Even the churches here are messed up and do not even practice what they preach.
    So if the schools are teaching bunk and the churches cannot get it right what does that do for future humanity? Are we going to evolve into bald one eyed aliens who travel back in time with a understanding the Brane-World model to freak people out and cause TV shows like the X-Files?
    I hope not.

  2. Wench Nikkiee says:

    “Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy”
    Is it just a coincidence that the above image uncannily resembles His Noodlyness?
    I think not!


  3. MrMiami says:

    @Wench Nikkiee:
    Soup kitchen experiments created the same kind of amino acids right here on Earth years ago. The problem was that the amino acids were naturally created but life did not emerge because the conditions that created the acids are hostile to carbon based life. The ‘so-called’ building blocks were present but life could form because the environmental conditions were not conducive to biological life. The experiments while interesting were of little value.
    So the same process seems to have naturally occurred 250 million light years away in the vast void of space amidst a cluster of stars. 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.

  4. Pope Murgatroyd says:

    Reading MrMiami’s diatribes has been interesting at first, then obnoxious, and finally nauseating. His “global warming” estimate and associated comments above are sheer, gibbering, slobbering nonsense. Anyone can do airthmetic, even if they can’t do statistical thermodynamics: see, e.g.,
    which you can judge for yourselves is light years closer to facts than MrMiami. If he wants to take on badmouthing Princeton, let him! From its manner and grammar, one would guess that the rest of his ranting is the same. (I dunno shit about string theory, maybe he’s right, there.)

  5. MV says:

    Empirical research is any research that bases its findings on direct or indirect observation as its test of reality. Such research may also be conducted according to hypothetical-deductive procedures. I know what it is but i guess you do not. You still have not cited your sources. You didn’t observe it yourself.
    As for Bransworld and String Theory, I am not a scientist but I searched numerous cites that stated what I put into the comments. So as far as my science being messed up it must be all the other websites out there . Wait I forgot, you know everything and everyone else is wrong.
    Based on most of your comments everyone else in the scientific community are a bunch of morons. You are narcissistic which anyone reading your comments can easily figure out.
    As for half baked ideas on the reality of science, i think your cake has been baking way too long and is overcooked. It is time to remove it from the oven.
    For your explanation against Wench Nikki, you say they have little value because life at the time was not conducive to carbon based life forms, but I have seen many programs on the Discovery Channel talking about finding life in places once thought uninhabitable. For example, finding life in the deep oceans near volcanic vents. Watched another program recently where simple single cell organisms were in early oceans when it would be considered not conducive to biological life. Wait, i forgot again you know everything and all other scientist out there are crap.
    Please let us know when you will receive your Nobel Prize for “MrMiami’s Theory of Self Glorification through the use of the 2nd Law of MrMiami’s Thermo-Indulgence.

  6. MrMiami says:

    @Pope Murgatroyd:
    Thank you for your article link.
    It so happens that I have an Aerospace background and studied the applied science of operating vessels in a variety of off planet atmospheres. So your article was interesting to me not as a science but as politics.
    Did you know that more than 70% of the Global atmosphere on this planet is processed in a treeline above 50 degree North? Through the process of photosynthesis plants convert CO2 to O2. It is an amazing process where the global atmosphere is dynamically managed. Coincidentally that treeline is expanding. Could it be because of the ready availability of CO2? Just think Americans get fat eating all the time. Could these plants have the similiar problem?
    There has been three sciences to global climates on this planet. They are:
    1. The CO2 blanket: C02 was creating a blanket at altitude trapping the sun rays between the surface and the blanket. The problem is that the CO2 molecule has an atomic weight of 46. Oxygens atomic weight is 32 and Nitrogens is 28. The long standing scientific principle of bouyance suggests that CO2 settles and cannot be a gas blanket at altitude.
    2. Increasing Content: This science suggested that the volume of CO2 was overwhelming the planet and retaining heat in the molecules. Long standing science of molecules and atoms indicates that molecules and atoms have ground states and always return to these ground states. Unless the source of heat is continuously applied, longterm retention of heat in the molecule is not possible. I think the sun has set on this science.
    c. Solar Heating Cycles: This is a early 1960’s NASA study that indicated that heating of the Earth’s atmosphere is a 24 hour cycle. 100% of the heat received each day is radiated back into space. The heat remaining is the resident heat or ground state heat content of the atmosphere and Earth’s surface. It is the correct science.
    Now, your article is posing another look at the same old stories.
    The article remarks that the resident levels of carbon dioxide are increasing and determined from ‘actual’ measurements not models. It is a return to the second science. I found the number in conflict. The EPA reports the CO2 emissions in 2005 were 650 million metric tons. Your article reports in 1994 that 6 Gigatons per year were being emitted. After remarking it does not use models it then goes on to model using interpolation of the data. I agree with the assessment that models diverge quickly and long term projections, which could be days based on the method, are useless.
    A key point of your article to note is ‘policy’ = politics. The UN is horrid for skewing information and studies. In the Oil for Food program the UN incorrectly assessed the population of Baghdad to be millions of more people than actually there in order to promote the program which has now been exposed as a scam. Your article data source is from the UN IPCC. Hence, the article discussing policy and a politically corrupted organization reinforces my earlier remarks that Climate Change is politically motivated.
    Thank you for reinforcing my understanding.
    I agree that we should consider nuclear power and other cleaner options for energy. I believe homes can be entirely energy self-sufficient using a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal power. This will reduce the degree of tradegy following natural disasters as people will have power in their homes if proper designed. I have been through hurricanes and was without power for a month waiting for our highly responsive policy makers in government to make my life better.

  7. Francesc says:


    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.

  8. Francesc says:


    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.

Leave a Reply