Evolution bill heads to Senate floor

Brandon Republican Ronda Storms' "academic freedom" bill (SB2692), which aims to protect teachers and students who want to discuss alternatives to evolution, cleared its final Senate committee on a partisan vote and is headed to the floor.

Critics worry the legislation opens the door to promoting a religious belief in public schools, but Storms says that is not her intent.

While other states including Louisiana have had evolution vs creationism legislation declared unconstitutional, Storms said her proposal isn't a constitutional violation because it "expressly declines to allow for the promotion of any religious doctrine or belief" such as creationism.

"The teaching of evolution is expressly supported to be taught in schools," Storms said.

The House companion to Storms' bill hasn't moved since it was filed last month.

Comments

Uh, where's uh the uh ALL CAPS girl with her STOP DIVERTING.... comment. Seems perfect for this post.

STOP DIVERTING ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE GOP TAX CUTS FOR BIG BUSINESS AND REDUCE CLASS SIZE AND CLEAN UP THE EVERGLADES LIKE YOU PROMISED!

Anyone who thinks this bill is a problem simply hasn't read the legislation. It just protects teachers and students.

It has to be "germane, current facts, data, and peer reviewed research specific to topics involving chemical and biological evolution."

And it says in the actual bill it's not to be interpreted as promoting religious beliefs.

What's the problem?

Intolerant Floridians & the Teachers Union do not want this bill because they will not have free license to indoctrinate the children at the expense of educating them and it does not suit their political agenda.

The teachers union is really showing what a bottom feeder organization it has become. After a recent PTA meeting a group was discussing how we were going to have to make the public more aware of the fact that they are too often standing in the way of educational progress because of their politics. Their oppostion to this legislation will serve as a prime example of who they are and where they stand.

2:34

while in principal I agree with you, but when it comes to indoctrinating children, intelligent design is more of a concern, nor is equivalent on the path of "educational progress"

If the purpose of science is to teach facts and eliminate the advancement of faith, then evolution and creationism should be taken out of the classroom.

Neither can proven and both require a leap of faith to accept. Everyone is always fighting over whether to include creationism or intelligent design along with evolution. That is the wrong fight. Take evolution out too.

The only evolution that should be taught is microevolution or natural selection within species. Macroevolution or the transition between species has no factual evidence and no place in a science classroom!

[Chris W]

4:07 - Right on time, the same dim-witted wishful thinking that anti-evolutionism is known for. Evolutionary theory does some things that creationism can't:

1. It actually explains *data* instead of trying to exploit anomalies and methodological errors.

2. It uses, as its foundation, a describable mechanism that can be tested and refined. No hands-on supernatural beings are needed, thank you very much.

3. It doesn't use fake scientists going to graduate school in a glorified diploma mill, and it doesn't have to fund vanity publications so it can pretend to be peer-reviewed.

It's pretty simple, really. Evolution *is* science, and creationism (of any description) is *not*.

first off, the house HASNT moved on the bill, knowing how dreadful and stoopid it and its sponsor is!!

second, there is NO SCIENTIFIC alternative to the THEORY of evolution!

third, a THEORY, for all the millions of dimbulbs out there, is a SCIENTIFIC term, used for identifying a proposition is just short of a LAW...i.e., gravity, motion, etc., etc.
it is NOT a simple-minded, unsupported guess!!

finally, creationism or
[un]intelligent design is based on a horribly ERRONEOUS understanding of the TWO creation myths in genesis 1 & 2.

1+1 is 3, sometimes!!

jay-sus tole me so!!

to hell with science and facts!!

Hey Chris,

You do a good job of spouting off what you were told in class but do not offer any examples of "evidence" of macro evolution.

You must have missed the point that I see the proof for micro evolution and support it's teaching in the classroom.

Since you are so smart and "anti-evolutionist" are not, please provide the scientific evidence of species in transition.

As someone who has actually studied Darwin at a legitimate university, I can tell you that even Darwin acknowledged the evidence was not available for support of macro evolution. Darwin believed that as more fossils were unearthed, this evidence would be found.

Well it's been 150 years and literally thousands of fossils have been discovered but none support macro evolution. Without scientific evidence, one must have faith to believe it. You do have faith, you just don't understand what you have faith in.

I'm the true scientist because I don't want anything that can't be proven being taught as science. By your definition, I would be anti-evolution and anti-creationism. So be it.

[Chris W]

9:01 - If you were a "true scientist" you might start by giving your name (or at least some initials) and where you went to school. "A legitimate university" doesn't say much of anything (depending on what you consider legitimate), and "studying Darwin" doesn't say anything either.

Creationists use this kind of tactic to avoid admitting that they're cribbing from Discovery Institute manuals instead of having actual worthwhile *relevant* academic credentials.

Your post also sounds like someone trying to bluff his way past an interview into a job he's completely unqualified for. The signs are all there - buzz phrases, defensive tone, unwillingness or inability to get specific. If you want to hear about evidence that's fine, but you'll have to make yourself look at least a *little* more serious.

way to go, 9.01!

you reallyreally NAILED him!!

now, how about explaining -- with that same incisive wit -- to us how come homo sapiens shares over 98% of its DNA with chimps and bonobos?

could it be because we are CLOSELY RELATED thru some common ancestor several million years ago,

or,

the result of intervention by the flying spaghetti monster!

damnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!

its both laughable and frustrating to read folks who are trying to sound "intelligent" but betray themselves the second they begin typing!!

remember, there are TWO CREATION MYTHS in genesis 1 & 2 and NO ONE was actually THERE to recored either one of them!!

If the Republicans were really concerned about education they would back Tax REFOFMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!

But noooooooooo, not themmmmmmm. Nope, this State is crashing and burning and they're focused on promoting one religion's belief on how the universe is created. Hey, think about coming up with money to hire math teachers, english teachers, geography teachers, science teachers - let religions teach their own theory of creation on their own dime!!!!!!

That's the Republican Party - turning the children of the former "middle class" who are now the "working poor" into illiterate drones to work in dead-end jobs in order that Republican power brokers can keep their privileged lifestyles with cheap labor.

So 9:01 offers examples of why he does not want evolution or creation taught as science and Chris and 10:24 ignore his specific examples and launch ad hominem attacks.

Hmmm.........

By the way, I think 9:01 is wrong, I support creationism. I just find it hilarious when legitimate questions are asked about evolution and evolutionist react like a bunch feminists with their hysterical rants and attacks.

9:01 had a legitimate question, where is the missing link?

[Chris W]

4:48 - Okay, then. Missing link between which two species? If 9:01 had such a legitimate question, how about framing it precisely enough to get an answer?

To do that and get a serious answer, you'll have to tell us what kind of answer would satisfy you. Would a transition between *any* two species do, or are you trying to limit the field to two species that are so far apart you have to go back millions of years to find a common ancestor?

I have asked this question of other creationists on this board, and they're never heard from again. Are you going to be one of those?

[Truth Seeker]

Chris W

How about an example of a transitional fossil demonstrating that fish evolved into frogs? Surely in the 250,000 fossils that have been unearthed, this basic linchpin of evolution can be supported, can't it?

While you are on the board, can you explain how the 6 to 7 million year old "Toumai" hominid fossil discovered in Chad in 2002 can have humanlike features that are much more "advanced" than "intermediate" fossils much farther down the evolutionary tree?

Daniel Lieberman, a Harvard specialist on human evolution says this discovery, "has the impact of a small nuclear bomb."

Everytime I ask this question of evolutionist on this board, they go away. Do you have any answers or do you just rely on your faith in evolution?

[Observer]

Hey Truth Seeker

Don't you get it? Man evolved, then devolved and them reevolved.

Problem Solved!

[Chris W]

TS, here you go.

1. Regarding fish into frogs, you are oversimplifying. Chris Ho-Stuart says it better than I can:

"Origins is a complex topic, with many aspects, and it is discussed in the archive and elsewhere by many different writers. None of them, however, proposes that a fish turned into a reptile, a frog, or a cow. It is true, however, that fish, reptiles, frogs and cows have common ancestors; which is not the same thing."

(http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/aug97.html)

If you could, please, cite the place where an evolutionist (preferably someone who has published in the last hundred years) has said that happened. And if you could, please include the part where he/she says it was a *modern* fish and a *modern* frog and not the two of them sharing an ancestor. Then I might be better able to help with the details and explain the evidence (or explain why the person saying it was full of ca-ca).

2. Regarding the Toumai skull, here is what Talk.Origins has to say:

"No bones below the skull have been discovered yet, so it is not known whether Toumai was bipedal or not. Brunet et al. say that it would be a not unreasonable inference that it was a habitual biped because it shares characteristics with other hominids known to be bipedal. Other scientists have pointed out the foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) of Toumai is positioned towards the back of the skull as in apes, indicating that the skull was held forward and not balanced on top of an erect body.

Brunet et al. consider Toumai to be a hominid, that is, on our side of the chimp-human split and therefore more closely related to us than to chimps. This is not at all certain. Some scientists think it probable; others have suggested that it may come from before the point at which hominids separated from chimps, while Brigitte Senut (one of the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis, "Millennium Man") has suggested that it may be an early gorilla. It is, I think, impossible to know how Toumai is related to us until other fossils can be found from the same time period."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html

Once again, I think you're confusing a significant fossil find with a fossil that is significant for *your* purposes. It could be that you haven't been trained in how to judge such significance, or you've been told by someone you trusted (and shouldn't have) that these things are problems for evolutionary theory when they're really opportunities for refinement.