Highlands County on teaching evolution and creationism

| 94 Comments

Florida Citizens for Science have posted another article showing what is the real motivations behind the opposition to the Florida science standards.

Norris, who is also a Lutheran minister, has stated that evolution should not be taught as fact and that students should be able to discuss creationism in class.

School Board Vice Chairman Andy Tuck said Thursday, “as a person of faith, I strongly oppose any study of evolution as fact at all. I’m purely in favor of it staying a theory and only a theory.

Help us educate these school boards. They seem to be confused that the standards call evolution a fact when it doesn’t. They also seem to believe that there may be competing theories of evolution; there are none.

And keep those postings coming, as they are documenting a clear religious component to the resolutions passed.

As their own school board agenda states ““HONESTY” “Honesty is something which must be known with the mind, accepted with the heart and enacted in life.” “

Next regular School Board meeting is February 5, 2008 at 5:30 p.m.

All Meetings are held in the Garland Boggus Board Room at the School Board’s Administration Building located at 426 School Street, Sebring, FL 33870 (map), (863)471-5555.


St Augustine

From The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Source

94 Comments

So, haven’t any of you realized the _real_ truth behind the organised opposition to the science standards? It’s the lawyers! Getting these resolutions passed is their way of getting multiple Dover vs. Kitzmiller trials. Just think of the income potential.

sirhcton

Educating them is a great idea. The question is how. The only way I can think of is to send them information and tell them explicitly that what you’re sending them is the very material that will be used to counter pro-Creationist stances. Send them a book with a card that says something like, “I will use this book to counter your arguments.” Send them a paper that says the same thing. Make them believe that reading the material will be an effective way to counter pro-evolutionary arguments. At least to some of them, it will be an enticement. It’s one thing to tell someone about information and then expect them to go and dig it up when they don’t want to pay for a book with which they disagree or access to a journal or whatnot. It’s another to put it right in front of them and challenge them with it directly.

Along the way, a few of these folks – not all, but maybe just a few – will learn something that will make them stop and say, “Hey, wait a minute, this seems pretty airtight. Maybe there is something to it.”

As a student, I had a few professors who challenged me to the point of my really getting to dislike them, and because of that I made it a point to excel in their classes in order to prove them wrong, as it were. I’m sure many of the people here who have been through some amount of higher education have had similar experiences. If it worked on us, maybe it will work on a few members of Florida school boards as well.

If they’re concerned about HONESTY, why not give them something about which to be HONEST?

Went digging for email contact for these board members, and found a link to Rev. Norris’ church. There is a general church info contact email address that probably goes to him or a church secretary on this page:

http://www.lpfla.com/about/worship.htm

scroll down until you find “Trinity Lutheran Church.”

” It’s one thing to tell someone about information and then expect them to go and dig it up when they don’t want to pay for a book with which they disagree or access to a journal or whatnot. It’s another to put it right in front of them and challenge them with it directly.”

It won’t work. The Dover boardmembers admitted they never read Pandas or the Dragonfly book. Behe admitted he hadn’t read the stacks and stacks of publications they put in front of him.

Not reading is like a badge of honor to these people.

Siamang,

You’re making the assumption, of course, that everyone is like the people involved in Dover. But the fact is that the books the Dover school board didn’t read were those that agreed with their position, not ones put before them as a challenge to their position. Nor does it matter that the stack of books were put in front of Behe at the trial. That’s a very different situation from sending people information before a trial, which the prosecution in Dover didn’t do. That might be a useful demonstration in a courtroom situation, but if the goal is to educate people, then at least attempting to send them educational material would seem to be in order. I’m certain you’d agree that the goal of Kitzmiller’s attorneys in Dover wasn’t to educate Behe on the witness stand.

All in all, I think we’re talking about apples and oranges.

And if the public wants science to be taught that it means that leprechauns doing a jig can turn lead into gold, yeah, that’s what should be taught.

But I do agree that we shouldn’t rely on the courts for an entirely different reason. We shouldn’t rely on the courts because when the case is over, school districts will find ways to do what they want to do when nobody is looking, especially in small rural districts and particularly in North Florida where ignoring laws that conflict with deeply-ingrained beliefs is standard operating procedure.

Science is not subject to public debate, and neither should science education be if the goal is to educate students about science. However, if the goal of those who support good education is to insure that it is provided to those students, educating the people who make decisions about what that education will actually consist of will have a lot more traction in the long run.

I submit that actually putting educational material in front of people is a possible way of changing a few minds. If a few are educated, they are very likely to educate others and not to be seen as interlopers — and believe me, I know from experience that North Florida culture tends to be VERY insular. I have had the experience there of being told that the difference between a Yankee and a Damned Yankee is that a Yankee only sticks around for a short while; a Damned Yankee buys property.

Having actually studied this stuff for years, I find that evolutionary theory makes an airtight case in the subjects in its domain of explanatory capability. I also believe that while many people are ignorant, few people are stupid. Ignorance can be changed with education. Given some of the same information that I have had access to, and that many others here have had access to, perhaps that’s what will happen. I have every reason to postulate, on the other hand, that if nobody does anything at all, then most likely nothing will change.

PvM requested, “Help us educate these school boards.” I think that’s an excellent idea. Highland County’s next school board meeting is on 2/5. The state BOE meets to decide on standard on 2/18, as I recall. How else do people propose to educate these school boards?

C’mon… there are a lot of terrifically smart people in here, most of whom can’t get to Florida in the next couple of weeks. Stick your necks out and toss around some practical ideas! It’s not hard to send educational materials to these people. What else can we do?

Nor does it matter that the stack of books were put in front of Behe at the trial. That’s a very different situation from sending people information before a trial, which the prosecution in Dover didn’t do.

It was a few professional books and numerous professional articles. As a professor Behe ought to read published papers daily. As a prof who had written controversially on the immune system, he ought to have studied every new paper with a bearing on his thesis. In addition he must have expected the subject to come up in cross examination. After all it’s what he was testifying as an expert witness on, and accepted pay for, and he had months to prepare. “Sorry, your Honor, I didn’t do my homework” was pretty lame. But perhaps he preferred that to being cross examined on the material.

@ABC/Larry - It’s not about what the majority of people THINK is OK - it’s about protecting the minority from oppression. (Like what’s happening to this poor girl right now!) http://www.news4jax.com/news/15133424/detail.html

The majority gets to put their representatives in office, but those representatives have to follow the law

ABC/Larry:

[ For example, the CATO Institute reported the following results of a formal Pew Research Center poll (July 6-19, 2006, 996 adults nationwide, MoE + or - 3.5)–

Q. Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools?

A. Favor, 58%; Oppose; 35%; Not Sure, 7%. – from http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007[…]d-ed-policy/

“the Constitution has created a system in which each individual and religious group can enjoy the full freedom to worship, free not only from the rein of government but from pressures by other sects as well.” - from US info.gov -

Pete,

I agree with you entirely about Behe’s responsibilities as a (alleged) scientist. Still, it’s a different situation than what I’ve suggested. I don’t think we can safely make the jump from Behe failing as a legitimate investigator to the general ignorance about the basics of science, let alone evolutionary theory, on a number of school boards in rural Florida. Barring the possession of data saying that it can’t work, my inclination is to at least try an experiment. These school boards have already passed, or are about to pass these resolutions, none of which are binding in any way upon the state. It’s less likely that the attempt would make matters worse than the potential to make them better, and in the case that it accomplishes nothing at all, the “investigators” are out nothing more than the cost of a few used books, printer ink and paper. The worst that will happen is that the stuff will get chucked in the trash or used to kindle a fireplace.

For my part, I’d be quite happy to participate in any other methods people come up with by way of attempts to educate these school boards. Given the situation as it exists now, somebody needs to try something other than court cases and long-winded replies on science blogs, like the one I’ve just written!

As a west coaster fairly recently returning to the south (Tennessee) after a very long hiatus, I am in a position to understand what goes on in the minds of fundies from this part of the country. IMHO there is no convincing the people who are perpetrating this nonsense in North Florida. We all know how convincing evolution is - our arguments are air tight. But it doesn’t matter!! To the fundie, all he/she knows is that the Bible is infallible, inerrant. Therefore anything that runs counter to it must be wrong no matter how convincing it may be. And evolution is the most wicked poison they can imagine, so that puts an exclamation point on it all.

I think the best tactics are to warn of an upcoming law suit which they will certainly lose. If nothing else, they understand money. If that doesn’t work, then we will see them in court.

Mike O'Risal Wrote:

Educating them is a great idea. The question is how.

I would start by finding out exactly what they know (or think they know). Not in in terms of perceived weaknesses of “Darwinism” - anyone can parrot those sound bites - but specifically what the designer did, when, and how, that makes some other explanation at least as promising as evolution in their minds. I would ask them individually, then show the answers to the group. Highlighting their radical differences, and breaking it to them that, at most one of their positions could be the correct one, will be very educational. A lot more educational IMO than all that cold, dry evidence for evolution that most of them won’t understand anyway. Sure, there may be some smarter ones who will practically admit being in on the scam, as Texas’ Don McLeroy did by praising the big tent strategy. But from what I hear about the Florida local boards, not many will be able to pull that off.

Jay W. Wrote:

Therefore anything that runs counter to it must be wrong no matter how convincing it may be.

Yes, so when they find that other evolution doubters have “theories” that run as counter to theirs as evolution does, they’ll be in for a rude awakening. Unless, as I mention above, they have been clued in on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” strategy. And every day I’m more convined that they have only been getting away with that “last resort” approach because we have been letting them.

I think the best tactics are to warn of an upcoming law suit which they will certainly lose.

These resolutions are sentiment and advisory. There is nothing to sue about in court.

To the fundie, all he/she knows is that the Bible is infallible, inerrant.

They are entitled to their religious beliefs but not to teach those as science in science classes. If they teach creationism in science classes, that is blatantly illegal and a court case would be a sure win.

In practice, they aren’t going to teach evolution in HS, no matter what the state of Florida says. There is no will or mechanism for the state to enforce curriculum standards.

If a group of people want to wallow in ignorance, not seeing anything anyone can do but let them wallow. Historically fundie areas have higher rates of poverty, child poverty, and social problems such as teen pregnancy than other parts of the country. Apparently they are happy with that.

Mike O’Risal: For my part, I’d be quite happy to participate in any other methods people come up with by way of attempts to educate these school boards.

A court case with a few million dollars in court expenses to be paid by the school board would be very educational for them.

ABC/Larry:

[ For example, the CATO Institute reported the following results of a formal Pew Research Center poll (July 6-19, 2006, 996 adults nationwide, MoE + or - 3.5)–

Q. Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools?

A. Favor, 58%; Oppose; 35%; Not Sure, 7%. – from http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/25/why-you-…

For a personal example of what those statistics mean, in a 1997 online poll I answered “Favor.” I figured, naively, that students would compare the evidence for evolution, including common descent and a ~4 billion year history of life with the evidence (or lack thereof) for YEC (the only creationism I was aware of at the time) and evolution would win hands-down. I soon learned about OEC and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ID strategy, and was shocked at how relentless anti-evolution activists were with cherry picking evidence, baiting and switching definitions and concepts, and quote mining. Since then I’m strictly opposed. But that does not mean that I object to anyone learning creationism, which they are free to do on their own time. They are even free to ignore the refutations, just as the activists want.

A good bet is that 99% who answered that question were just as misled as I was. And of those who aren’t, “Opposed” becomes the majority answer.

Frank J:

A good bet is that 99% who answered that question were just as misled as I was. And of those who aren’t, “Opposed” becomes the majority answer.

It doesn’t matter what the majority answer is - it’s illegal. The poll is a useless waste of money. (Unless the goal is to give people an illusion to cling to)

The poll is a useless waste of money.

I disagree to an extent, because first it can tell us quantitatively what we’re up against WRT enforcing that law (if it’s done correctly) and second, we don’t know whose money we’re talking about.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 23, column 262, byte 3551 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Paul Burnett:

A court case with a few million dollars in court expenses to be paid by the school board would be very educational for them.

And then what?

How does this wind up breaking multi-generational ignorance and improving education one bit?

As raven has noted, the resolutions being passed are an attempt to influence the state BOE; there’s nothing here over which to sue. A lawsuit would have to be the result of someone observing the teaching of Creationism in a classroom. Would anyone here like to volunteer to sit in on science classes in one of these districts?

And then let’s say you sue. You sue and sue and sue and bankrupt the school districts and the school boards. When there’s no more money left to run the schools, who steps in? Does the state put money in to keep schools functioning, or do they allow them to stop working and instead open private schools that can get away with not teaching science at all and turn into indoctrination centers for religious fundamentalists? Isn’t that essentially what many Creationists want to do in the first place? One of the threats being made already is that if the state passes the new standards the Creationists will pull their children out of public school.

If the point of all of this is to bankrupt school districts that aren’t in compliance with federal law, then filing lawsuits is a winning strategy, no doubt. However, if there’s any element of concern that children receive a solid science education that gives those who want it the opportunity to pursue a career in science, sooner or later something has to be done to change minds in some way.

Jay W.:

As a west coaster fairly recently returning to the south (Tennessee) after a very long hiatus, I am in a position to understand what goes on in the minds of fundies from this part of the country. IMHO there is no convincing the people who are perpetrating this nonsense in North Florida.

As a New Yorker who also lived on the West Coast, then in North Florida (Hillsborough and Leon Counties) for several years, I think it’s a mistake to lump everyone together like this. There are certainly some people of whom this is true. They’re the willfully ignorant or, more succinctly, stupid. They will always be with us. On the other hand, a lot of what one sees isn’t stupidity but ignorance. People who have lived all their lives in places like Taylor and Madison counties — both poor, rural areas dominated by fundamentalist Baptism — often haven’t had the opportunity to have a good education. That doesn’t make those people disposable or less human or even stupid. I would very much like to see things change in those places, and that starts with education. If the minds of just a few people in positions of responsibility were to change and those people not morph suddenly into drug-crazed, orgy-throwing, gay-marrying Satan-worshipers, others in those communities might well see evolutionary biology as something other than a threat to their communities imposed from without.

Which, by the way, is something that all the lawsuits in the world are never going to accomplish.

It sounds to me like this is essentially an “argument from hopelessness.” In that case, what’s the point of even filing lawsuits, as others have suggested? Why not just forget about it and let schools in these jurisdictions teach religion in science classes?

It’s not arbitrary, idiot. You were banned for good reason, just go away.

Some questions for ABC/Larry,

1. Are your comments deleted, or just moved?

2. I can see your comment 141,296 as neither deleted or moved. Can you see it too?

3. Do you have the same complaint against “Uncommon Descent,” which deletes comments and bans posters far more often than PT?

Stacy S. Wrote:

It doesn’t matter what the majority answer is - it’s illegal.

Agreed that it’s illegal. And while I prefer private vs. tax funding, I do think such polls are worthwhile. The illegality of teaching ID/creationism/”the controversy” is only half of the problem. The other is the dismal attitude of Americans toward science and the popularity of pseudoscience.

As you probably know, some of that 58% actually accepts evolution - or what they think is evolution. But they have fallen for the “fairness” line, as I did 11 years ago. Such polls show that we need to do a better job of educating people. And that job is far more difficult than winning the next Dover (not to imply that that would necessaily be as easy as the last one).

Other polls show that, with greater education, acceptance of evolution, and rejection of teaching “the controversy,” increases. Even among the religious and/or conservative. Yet the way the “controversy” is hyped in the media, that is still a well-kept secret.

Permanently banned commenter Larry Fafarman Wrote:

PT needs to maintain some minimal standards of integrity!

They do. Under those standards of integrity, called the “Comment Integrity Policy” you were permanently banned for knowingly, deliberately, and repeatedly violating those standards over a course of two months, despite repeated warnings, and only after you commented under another commenter’s name. This banishment was a group decision, and means that you are not allowed to post under any name at any time on any topic at Panda’s Thumb. This banishment is non-arbitrary. Banishments are extremely rare on Panda’s Thumb (only a handful have ever been banned) and are applied equally (I have seen as many pro-PT commenters get banned as anti-PT get banned - if anything, the anti-PTer’s get a longer leash, as you yourself demonstrated).

I think that one strategy might be to get an official statement from the University of Florida regarding entrance requirements. Perhaps we could get them to be very specific about what they require as a background in biology and evolution. We could also get such statements from other colleges, graduate programs and medical schools. We could then send copies to the state board of education and to individual county school boards. That way they would know exactly how disadvantaged their children would be in the modern marketplace. It might not make a big difference, but it might at least get some people to think twice before selling out their children’s futures.

Another strategy might be to become very involved in school board elections, especially at the state level. We could make evolution an issue for every candidate. That way everyone will know how the candidates stand when they vote. It won’t stop people from voting for anti-science types, but at least they will know that that is what they are doing. If pro-science school boards can be elected, then at least good standards would be in place. Any county passing standards contrary to the state standards could then come under closer scrutiny. Once again, it might not be effective in controlling what goes on in individual classrooms, but it would at least be a start.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to force anyone to learn anything. Education merely provides the opportunity for learning. Presumably, people will be motivated by the advantages provided by learning. The least we can do is to point out the disadvantages of not learning.

Where is the Florida Association of Science Teachers in all of this?

Can FCfS contact the faculty senates of their state-supported universities and propose that those faculty senates endorse a statement of support for the new standards?

How about the biotech industries in the state - don’t they have an interest in being able to recruit science-literate graduates of Florida public schools?

Mike O’Risal:

It seems that this isn’t an issue of “I’ll be damned if I understand evolution” as much as it’s a matter of “I’ll be damned if I understand evolution.”

I don’t know that logic can sway those kinds of decisions. But kudos for sending “Inner Fish” to Slough!

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams:

Where is the Florida Association of Science Teachers in all of this?

Can FCfS contact the faculty senates of their state-supported universities and propose that those faculty senates endorse a statement of support for the new standards?

How about the biotech industries in the state - don’t they have an interest in being able to recruit science-literate graduates of Florida public schools?

Great idea! - Can I copy and paste your idea to FCS? Or would you like to? Here’s the link … – http://www.flascience.org/wp/

There are two issues with creationism in schools.

1. Teaching creationism in science classes is unconsitutional as a violation of church and state. The law is clear on this.

2. Not teaching evolution as the state standards might require, is a crime or error of omission. This would be difficult to litigate in court because not doing something is harder to prove than doing something. It probably isn’t even illegal, arguably a civil tort on the lines of “providing an inferior education” or some such.

I can’t see that the state school board has any will or mechanism to enforce their guidelines. In practice, these school boards will just ignore the state guidelines like they do in Texas and Arkansas.

My first reaction was, “bunch of ignorant hillbillies, let them stay stupid and poor.” But as several posters have pointed out, there are a lot of ways to put pressure on the Voluntary Ignorance factions. It even worked in one county where the Flying Spaghetti Monster routed the forces of darkness.

It might end up working well. The educated, wealthy parts of the USA look at these clowns as hooterville hicks from some backward age. Not an image most people want to project. There are also likely to be progressive factions in the counties that would like to join the 21st century.

Just contesting the school board elections on a improve education and teach science platform might wake these guys up. “All that is needed for evil to win is for good to do nothing.”

ABC/Larry Wrote:

Yes, I have the same complaint against UD, and I have criticized UD for it.

Fair enough. So count me as one who thinks that your comments should not be deleted. Especially the ones where you say that questions about your alternate “theory” are off-topic. At least some lurkers will wonder what you have to hide.

raven Wrote:

There are two issues with creationism in schools.

1. Teaching creationism in science classes is unconsitutional as a violation of church and state. The law is clear on this.

2. Not teaching evolution as the state standards might require, is a crime or error of omission. This would be difficult to litigate in court because not doing something is harder to prove than doing something. It probably isn’t even illegal, arguably a civil tort on the lines of “providing an inferior education” or some such.

What might make #2 easier to litigate is that it’s alawys advocated by the same people that promote #1. Remember Kansas, 1999? Plus the only reasons that they ever give for not teaching evoluion eventually collapse to their philosophical objections. If Ben Stein’s babbling is any indication, the DI’s pretense of “it’s only about the science” will soon become as obsolete as demands to teach Genesis instead of evolution.

Adding 1 and 2, it becomes clear that the common sentiment of all stripes of anti-evolutionist, now, if not in the Scopes era, is a spiteful “if you won’t teach my pseudoscience, you shouldn’t teach your science either.”

Incidentally -

they seem to be confused that the standards call evolution a fact when it doesn’t

The standards should call evolution a fact, as it is an easily observable factual phenomenon. Simple short term examples include (but are not limited to, by any means) bacterial antibiotic resistance, insect insecticide resistance, and agricultural selection. (Note - humans are “natural” and when phenotypes are selected for by humans engaged in symbiosis/predation referred to as “agriculture”, that selection is just as “natural” as when faster prey are selected for by chasing predators and so on.)

The theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. It explains how the diversity of cellular and post-cellular life’s morphology, physiology, biochemistry, genetics, etc, that we see here on earth, can be explained by evolution.

@ Frank - I’m not doing any hard work - I’m just an obsessed mother!! :-) I imagine I’ll be obsessed until the Florida BoE votes on the proposed science standards on the 19th.

BTW, Florida Citizens for Science has an online petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/flascience/ - that they will send to the BoE in a couple of days - after you sign it, it takes you to a “make a donation page”, but don’t worry - you can just exit.

angst-

You may be correct that Mae Ferguson never said these statements, and that’s why I was circumspect and wrote she “allegedly” said the “King James” statement. I did actually see the statement Someplace, just as I stated it.… I mean Really, how can you forget a statement like that! But, who knows the validity. Just because it’s listed as a quote online, it doesn’t mean it’s true.

Having said that… Mae Ferguson is reportedly to have been a very colorful character. As far as Education, we can’t that use that to prove Anything. Since I got my computer online a little over two years ago, Nothing surprises me anymore.

The phrase, in my post, was an example of how little demand for Critical Thinking people put on themselves. Once people accept something as True, they will bend over backwards to make the world fit into their mold of how Things Should Be. Unfortunately, Science takes a back seat to many people’s demand that their own particular religion’s teachings are True. As I said before, my church made no literal interpretation demand so it was very easy to accept the Theory of Evolution as a valid Scientific fact.

Scientists are taught to think differently. We accept a the Theory of Evolution like we accept many Scientific arguments. But if / when an alternate Theory comes along, or an opposing Theory, we feel free to learn, discuss, argue, and over time possibly be able to discard one or the other. In Physics, I think there are rules that pertain to one situation, but not another.

We learn, and adapt. But once religion is allowed to start imposing their dogma upon science education, the world will change, and it might not just be a matter of stepping on the toes of an alternate theory anymore. We all probably know some of the problems that Galelao had when presenting his theories to people more comfortable in the political arena.

If M. Ferguson did really state something like the “King James” statement, it merely shows her inability for critical scientific thinking. Maybe people in politics are trained more in the Social Sciences and the Scientific Methold would seem kinda foreign, just as it might be hard for a Scientist to enter the world of politics.

Unfortunately, it is these politicians that are determining weather or not Intelligent Design / Creationism is going to be taught in Science Classes. I don’t think EDUCATION is going to help them, they don’t need the Scientific Methold in their jobs, and if they have a religious agenda or are pestered by religious fundamentalists… the future of The Theory of Evolution in the U.S. is in trouble.

And that’s where we are now.

I’m glad there is a forum like Pandas Thumb to get information concerning Evolution education. Also NCSE.

A GOOD THING happened in Florida tonight!!

http://www.flascience.org/wp/ !! :-)

Does anyone know what the feelings are of Gov. Crist on Evolution? I just heard that he might be McCain’s ‘running mate’.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on January 25, 2008 11:59 AM.

Zimmer and Shubin on Tiktaalik was the previous entry in this blog.

The giant panda: a morphological study of evolutionary mechanisms is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter