BOE member: "I want God to be part of this"

The other shoe has dropped. State Board of Education member Donna Callaway says she’ll be voting against the proposed new state science standards because evolution “should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life” and says she hopes “there will be times of prayer throughout Christian homes and churches directed toward this issue.”

"As a SBOE member, I want those prayers," Callaway said, according to a Nov. 30 column in the Florida Baptist Witness, a weekly newspaper based in Jacksonville that is an official organ of the Florida Baptist Convention. "I want God to be part of this. Isn’t that ironic?"

Callaway, a former middle school principal and Jeb appointee, is one of seven board members who’ll be voting on the science standards early next year. But more importantly for the moment, she is the highest-profile official to date who has come out against the draft standards since the Department of Education released them for public comment in October. Educators and scientists have generally given them a good review (see St. Petersburg Times story here.) In fact, another key scientist gave them a plug yesterday (see press release here.)

Evolution "is like no other subject we teach. Therefore, it is of supreme importance," Callaway continued, according to the Florida Baptist Witness. "This has the possibility of confirming or denying for a child who he/she really is. This strikes to the meaning, the value, and the core of life itself. I firmly believe that a child can deal with the proof of science along with a personal belief in God as the Creator of the universe at the same time. The classroom should allow him, openly, that opportunity. Teachers should be allowed the leeway to acknowledge that there are other theories."

Callaway told the newspaper she does not believe intelligent design should be taught, but said it should be "acknowledged as a theory which many people accept along with others. Students need to have any proof, scientific evidence that is there. But the fact that there are other theories about certain parts, at least needs to be pointed out, footnoted. I believe this is true education."

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

See also: Future speaker, intelligent design believer, the Gradebook, 12/05/2007; Divisions open over science standards, St. Petersburg Times, 12/06/2007

Comments

[johnnymar]

I was waiting for someone to pull out Behe. The "many" PhDs at Discovery are in truth a select few. And just because you have a PhD doesn't make you an expert; neither does any other advanced professional degree. I know plenty of PhDs who would sell their soul for a buck.

If you are curious, read the Dover school district court transcripts. The ID movement admitted under oath -- and DI internal documents show this -- that the ID term and marketing position was created (sorry about the pun) because creationism had already been declared unconstitutional to teach in schools.

While it may be true that their stated positioning has changed from "God created everything" to "there is no way to reduce anything to irreducible complexity" it was for legal and their own survival reasons.

Aside from the whole "separation of church and state" thing, science and mathematics curriculum aren't the place to debate theories at the high school level. You get to debate and challenge science and math when you're a PhD student. But at the high school levels they need to learn the fundamentals.

You want ID in the classroom? Fine. Put it in a comparative religions course. In that case I see no problem with church/state issues. But of course that in itself is a tricky one, as you need a teacher who is willing to openly talk about major belief systems, and not bring biases to the classroom.

[b^3]

Ladyfractal:
Thank you for a deliberative, reasoned
post. I'm disappointed there are no responders, but not surprised.

[ladyfractal]

Pinellas high school science teacher did posteth:

(Nothing in evolution can either...because NO ONE was there to OBSERVE it!)

It has already been pointed out that there are any number of effects, black holes, for instance, that cannot be directly observed but can be inferred from secondary observations so I won't overly belabor that point. That said, by your own lights, NONE of the historical sciences work, and neither does quantum mechanics because large parts of QM cannot be directly observed either. I find that an astonishing statement on your part, given your being a high school science teacher.

(Why are Evolutionists so scared?....Creationsits and Intell. Design people are not intimidated by evolution.)

Actually, I believe that ID/Creationists are quite intimidated by evolutionary theory. Which is why, almost to a person, every creationist/ID person I have read, debated with, or watched has been almost singularly ignorant of canonical evolutionary biology. (most of what creationists argue against is NOT actual evolutionary biology) What you experience as intimidation is frustration. When I was an undergrad, we sort of took evolution for granted and it wasn't until I was in my upper-division coursework that we actually really got into evolution. It was not until my graduate school work that I really got into the meat and bones of the subject. All of us who work in the biological sciences, or who have done graduate study on the subject, understand that evolution is a fiendishly subtle and complex subject matter and those of us who are educators do not want to have to spend the best part of an academic term, where we already have enough to do, helping people *unlearn* bad ideas put in their heads by people who have only a passing familiarity with science.

Lastly, I would like to ask any creationists/ID proponents reading this to list three--just three--criteria by which ID or Creationism could be falsified. Saying "if you could disprove God..." isn't a falsification criteria. Those of you who advocate teaching your sectarian religious belief in science classes are implying that creationism is scientifically sound. If it is, then it can be falsified.

To give you a hand with what I mean, here are three falsification criteria for evolutionary biology:

1> If no means of inheritance existed, evolution would be falsified.

2> If there were no incipient or residual structures, evolution would be falsified.

3> If it were shown that selection did not lead to changes in phenotype, evolution would be falsified.

#1, would've been met if DNA didn't exist.

#2 would've been met if, for example, humans didn't have a residual tail-bone (the coccyx)

#3 would've been met if, for example, there weren't various breeds of dogs, cats, sheep, or cows (just to take obvious examples).

Now, for you creationists, your turn.

[Tim]

This wasteful, senseless debate only demonstrates the ignorance and stupidity that some people possess regarding the understanding of science, and represents the disturbing effects of Christian fundamentalism in America. If this is the direction that America's citizens want to go in, then we deserve falling behind the rest of the world when it comes to science and technology. We are a damn laughingstock to the rest of world when it comes to our education system, particularly those related to science. Mike Judge was right...we are becoming an "idiocracy"!!

Yes, ignorance and stupidity in America, folks. Ignorance because some people just don't know any better since they lack any solid education in the sciences (these people are fence sitters and can still be educated); and stupidity because other people understand evolution, but surprisingly ignore the evidence because it somehow disrupts their belief in God and Jesus, as if God himself would come down and smite them upon their heads. Absolutely mind boggling!

Think about it, folks... If creationism and/or intelligent design are taught in the classrooms the way the Christian radicals would prefer, our country would quickly succumb to an intellectually foul landslide of proportions not seen for generations and inconsistent with the expected progress of our age. Science would become a complete joke in this country since people would no longer understand the fundamental elements of time and space. There would be no need for empirical evidence--all we need is a little faith and you can make anything a science.

So, the only joy that I could get from this madness is watching these "God-fearing" mobs of dumb idiots rip themselves apart as they continously disagree with each other over which religious faith will present the "facts", as well as the exact details concerning how it all happened. I mean honestly folks, would this be a reading from Genesis that might last about a week? Or would the teacher simply walk to the front of the classroom and say, "Well boys and girls, evolution is not necessarily true since we all know that God made everything. We don't have proof, but the Bible says it, so it must be true. You may go home now." No! There has to be some filler in all this or else it doesn't sound convincing enough. After all, evolutionary sciences have massive volumes and encyclopedias of information related to biological evolution alone. So, why not fill the creation classes with some meaty stuff like important God-fearing issues like morality, sin, abstinence, commandments, abortion, the end times or apocalypse, Jesus returning, and just being a good Christian soldier. Who would be the ones who would make the final ruling regarding what would be taught? Oh, and be sure to ignore the belief systems of all the Christ killing Jews, demon-loving Buddhists and Hindus, and don't forget about the hell bound atheists and pagans! But, we'll be sure to pray for all of your damned souls.

As you can see, folks, it never ends. If these people want to bring their kids to a school to teach them that dinosaurs and humans played together in the magical Garden of Eden, by all means, feel free, but do it at a private school where all the rest of these crazies like to congregate and infect themselves.

Keep science and religion apart. No man, woman, or child deserves to see their country relive a dark age of religious insanity, intolerance, and stupidity--all at the hands of the most backwards people in America.

[SKelliot]

Creation isn't a theory..so by all means teach the other theories...if there is any...but don't teach things that are not a theory..

One would think that as a State Board of Education member Donna Callaway would understand the nature of the beast that she is regulating. Apart from purely religious grounds, she objects to the emphasis of the new science standards on evolution because as she puts it, if evolution is incorporated into the standards, teachers will teach it, as it will be tested on the science FCAT. Even fundamentalist science teachers, of which there are many, will be forced to teach it.
This would be a reasonable assumption in any other endeavour. The State of Florida requires students to take a Science FCAT test in the eleventh grade, and yes a knowledge of evolution will be tested if the new standards are adopted. But, the score does not count for the student. It has zero impact for the student, however the scores will count towards the composite grade for the school!!
How about that, scores don't count for the student but do for the school. How many people want to sign up for a three hour test where it doesn't matter what you score - no rewards, no penalty.
If they are so inclined, how many teachers will ignore the evolution section? The fundies are fighting for a hill they don't have to take.

[Mencken Jr]

kdr, leaving aside the name calling would be a good idea. But arguing with a creationist (or debating, if you will) is a singularly frustrating experience for a number of reasons.

1. As a group, you don't seem to know what the actual definition of a "theory" is in science. But you're more than happy to take the colloquial meaning and run with it. And no matter how many times we explain it to you, it doesn't stick.

2. You don't really see debating as a way to find the truth, because you already think you know and you're just humoring us by pretending to debate. Rather, you see a "debate" the same way a politician does - as a chance to talk to the faithful and maybe convince a heathen or two in the bargain. Never mind facts or logic.

3. You aren't really open to having your mind changed at all. New (to you) evidence gets explained or wished away, and when one of you says "there are no missing links" and one of us hands you the link to the Talk Origins web site with tons of transitional fossils, you just go into stubborn denial (shortly before you abandon the thread completely).

So on and on it goes, and it's not too surprising when someone blows a gasket and starts calling you names. No, it's not very constructive. But it *is* understandable.

[HeathenAngel]

Posted by: kdr - "Actually Ant, its because we dont appreciate the name calling. I would love a good debate on the subject, but it has gotten rather nasty in here of late and many of us just dont care for the treatment."

Translation: We are tired of having our asses handed to us, time and time again. We know that faith cannot compete with EVIDENCE and PROOF. Seeing as how faith is NOT a scientific term, or concept, we come up short, every time. We recognize that we are in over our heads and out of denial and embarrassment, have decided to abandon the thread and topic. We like to think that our flying-jewish zombie and our sky-daddy is all powerful, but we don't think we should have to hold our belief in them to the same standards to which we hold our belief/disbelief in celestial teapots, pink unicorns and invisible dragons living in the garage.

Again.. harsh? Probably.. but long overdue. It's time that the faith-heads realize that we don't care what they believe, we don't care that the DO believe.. we are just fine with the idea of them CONTINUING to believe.. but we will not stand idly by and allow them to subvert science by trying to teach a faerie-tale as fact.

[Mike]

“Public position, private views”

http://blogs.tampabay.com/schools/2007/12/public-position.html

frok, Don't paint all religious people with a broad brush. There are at least 2 posts here about Catholic schools teaching evolution in science class and the story of creation in religion class. There are several posts citing the Catholic Church's (the Pope!) acceptance and teaching of Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species. Many, many deeply religous people are able to understand how science and religion are completely compatible. There is a vocal group, an unfortunatly ignorant vocal group, who are strident in their defense of the undefensible. They are welcome to teach their children as they please (perpetuating ignorance, unfortunately). They are free to send their children to private fundamentalist religious schools (which are not better than the Muslim madras they're so eager to scream about) which will teach them nothing but creationism and paint science as the tool of the devil. But they absolutely MAY NOT mandate that public schools teach their, or any other, religion.

Doesn't anyone see the link? The latest polls indicate a large majority of Americans do not believe in evolution. The politicians wanting to keep their seats promote that view, and have done so for years. Remember Sputnik - it took the Russian launch to invigorate science education in this country in the 50's; it had been languishing since the Scopes Monkey trial. You can't have a scientific mindset for things like ipods and laptops but disregard the science behind global warming and evolution. No wonder our students score low on international Math/Science tests - it's because they haven't been taught to think scientifically,logically. Memorizing facts is what passes for science education at most schools. If the students were taught to really observe, examine, and analyze evidence, religion is not the only thing they would question. And that is why there will be no change.

[frokeefe]

Religious people are immune to logic, reality and understanding, so trying to educate them about science and fact is a waste of time. The major concern is preventing them from injecting their superstitions into government and public education.
Libertarians have a good course of action: "Harass your local politicians." Only by promoting science facts and reality to decision makers do non-superstitious people have influence.
Fortunately, all reputable scientists promote Evolution as reality - there are no competing "theories".
Let public schools teach Creationism along with equally invalid foolishness, i.e. other ancient, primitive religious stories about creation.

[Patre]

The whole argument boils down to two things for the fundamentalist, and its scientific validity is neither.
1) Faith: As was stated early in the “debate”, Believer in Creationism said that she was worried that the children wouldn’t know God if their parents didn’t take them to church. And for many, all they want is for us to “be saved”. This is based on a genuine belief that they are right. Fine.
2) Fear: Not directly fear of non-believers or of science or truth, but fear in the fact that in their eyes, Atheism is worse than death for their children. Losing a child to the reaper still promises Life Eternal. Losing a child to Atheism would mean no forgiveness in the eyes of God. For many fundamentalists, Evolution is to them what dancing is to Baptists. It’s not what it is; it’s what it can lead too.

At that point, truth plays no part, and all the proof or facts or evidence won’t turn the true believer or the fearful believer. Many have stated that they might be wrong, but “what if…” they were right and we were wrong.

All we can do in this case is to let them know that we are aware of what they are up to, bring to light the lies, the Wedge and their attempt to insert some form or religion into the school curriculum.
I have a 6 y/o, live in Florida, and I am in fear of “Good natured” god lovers introducing their beliefs to my son and calling it science.

[Liquid Animate]

That's the thing with Science. It's all facts and no love. All of this has been lost in translation. I hear 'cite your source' instead of let's agree to disagree. So I am here not to defend either side, but to bring some love. I am not smarter than you are nor claim to be. I am not going to start pointing fingers or take a side. My side is in the middle. I appreciate that you all feel so strongly about this, and I think we can pretty much discern that we have a winner in this heated conversation. Me. I love that Sara loves as much as she does. I love that people feel the need to prove themselves intellectually superior. Ten years ago you weren't blogging. You were just.. you know, being you. I am not trying to convert you. Just reminding you that you can write for the moment, or for the ages.

I have noted with interest Ms Callaway's willingness to inject her religious opinions into the state science standards. While I respect her beliefs about the origins of life, I cannot accept that such beliefs are "scientific" theories. The reason is quite simple: scientific theories must be "falsifiable" or they are not valid theories. Instead they are conjecture. As such, they really don't belong in a science class at all.

Under what conditions would a scientist be able to falsify Creationist or Intelligent Design conjectures? Is there any type of physical evidence that would definitely allow a scientist to TEST and either confirm or disconfirm such ideas? The answer is no. That's why such articles of faith are best left where they belong: in the Church.

The problem as I see it is that Darwin's theory of evolution is the best way for scientists to make sense of the evidence they have concerning life. For many folks, this is not the only way to render the fundamental question. Instead there are ways that involve believing accounts that are based on ancient documents (e.g., the Bible or the Rg Vedas). This is not say these accounts are scientific--they are not. They are a different kind of account: they don't seek to explain life; instead they render it meaningful in a larger context that really doesn't concern itself with verification, evidence and inference.

Fact is, science is a way to make sense of life without resorting to appeals that are in principle outside the boundaries of physical verfication. Does that mean that there is only one "truth" about life? Clearly not. For example, you can describe the physical properties of a hammer and never really get to the "truth" of what that hammer means to a carpenter.

I suggest that the impulse to describe a broader sense of "meaning" about life is best left to the individual, rather than a state funded monolith. In the long run, the interests of the child will be better served if such ideas are the exclusive domain of the child's parents, not the state. My experience as a college professor has been that the child's faith is going to override the educator's assertions anyway. How else to explain people's beliefs in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that contradict them?

[kdr]

Actually Ant, its because we dont appreciate the name calling. I would love a good debate on the subject, but it has gotten rather nasty in here of late and many of us just dont care for the treatment.

[Ant]

Where did the people defending creationism/intelligent design/America-the-Christian-Nation go?
Frustrating isn't it that when mounds of brilliant evidence that contradicts their convictions is presented, they dont hang around to argue. They just disappear.

I'm sure it's because that, deep down, they know they are wrong, and that they'll lose any argument.

But would they EVER consider allowing the evidence to change their mind?

You see, the great thing about scientists, is that if THEY disagree, or have conflicting evidence, or conflicting theories, then they will sit around for as long as it takes, arguing and changing their mind until the truth is discovered.

Intelligent Design is a hollow shell; it is pure speculation and wishful thinking that attempts to curry the respect of ill-educated people by bandying around scientific sounding terms, and by endlessly re-citing out-of-date discredited material. Unfortunately for the state of the school system, many people already seem to lack the critical skills to attempt to sift through such dross. Teaching Intelligent Design in SCIENCE class would be the final nail in the coffin of any school system.

[Ron]

Since these are science classes, I believe that the theories presented should have a scientific basis. I have never seen any scientific studies which have been able to follow a course of development in relation to creationism. Since there is documentation of natural adaptation then we should have been able to notice a "single stroke" of change and observed the cause. Perhaps we should scientifically study and document this proposed theory.

[Terri Bohr]

I was trying to get Ms Callaway's email address to respond to her comment but they do not post those addresses. She needs to understand that all that can be taught in science class is science - things that can be measured, weighed, counted and otherwise studied. You can not do that with God or belief in God. Our job in the classroom is to teach scientific method and the best explanation for physical phenomena based on what we know now. Can that change? yes! Does that mean science is wrong? no! It is a process of discovery and no matter how string your belief in God and creationism is you can not call that science. Tell the kids that they may learn some other explanation at home or at their church but this is how science explains things. Science does not negate the existance of God - it's apples and oranges - you can note explain God with science or use God to explain science.
Also, people need to learn the correst scientific definition for theory - it is not someone's idea - it's a proposed explanation that is based on tons of evidence and tested hypotheses.

[brian]

Here we go again. How many times must you fight old battles only to lose once more? Evolution is no more a theory than Gravity is a theory. Creationism and ID belong in a class that deals with myths, not science class; and you wonder why US students lag far behind in Math/Science scores? Nuff said.

[Tom]

Ms. Calloway...

I want to inform you that I am converting to Pastafarianism.

This is an open letter to the state of Kansas School Board written by our church's founder:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

If ID is going to be pushed to the students of Florida, I would like our equally valid creation myth taught as well.

Our leader has said that the church is willing to legally fight for our right to be included.

Thank you....

[Taz]

"When Michael Behe, Ph.D. (molecular biologist) researched the vast libraries of evolutionary articles, he couldn't find any that deal with how evolutionary mechanisms could produce irreducibly complex systems."
Then he took the stand in Dover and claimed that there was no scientific research into the evolutionary development of the bacterial flagellum. At which point the prosecuting attorney began stacking book upon book, paper upon paper in front of him, all containing scientific work dealing with that very subject. Behe was shown to be a fool.

[fireant]

As, an ex-patriot Floridian, observing from the rodeo buckle of the redneck belt, its hartening to see people of science and reason stand up to and repeatedly demolish creationist/ID foolishness. Clearly, Calloway wishes to damage the education of Florida's children and should be held accountable. It would be good if someone, or a group, be preset every time she speaks to insist she explain why she favors teaching unscientific, religiously motivated material in publicly funded science classes, which is manafestly illegal, exposing any local school district doing so to expensive litagation. The many posts on this thread, demonstrating stunnig ignorance of science, the scientific method and evolution, is a sad but eloquent testament why Florida's science education standards must be made more rigorous. I was going to say "Don't give an inch." but better I think is - "Put it in low gear and keep rolling forward." I wish you great success. And for the rest of you - May the Great Noodlie Appedage embrace you.

[Alex]

Just because many people believe in creationism doesn't make it any more valid or true. The school board shouldn't be swayed by what the general population says. Same goes for evolution. "Teach them all or teach none," just doesn't get us anywhere.

As far as I'm concerned, the theory of evolution beats creationism by any scientific standards. If the school board is considering implementing intelligent design, it is only to please the religious crowd.

[Sarah]

I went to Catholic school and learned evolution. What's the big deal? We even were taught in religion class that Creationism was just a story (biblical myth was the proper term) and that evolution is real.

Whether or not you believe in god, evolution is real. Creationism belongs in religion class, and last I checked they didn't have that in public schools.

I don't understand why we are still debating this today. It seem that Florida is stuck in a time warp... hello, 1950! I haven't seen you in a while.

[Karen]

Here is a link to the NOVA program "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial". It was broadcast on PBS a few weeks back.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

[StPeteCrimes.com]

My religion tells me that Ram'n Nudl, the great Persian Kitty Kat, created the earth when he coughed up a hairball. Can we include that in science classes too?

[Dennis]

jb:

Yes, it is scary that a supposed science teacher would say that. Using that logic, it is not science to say how mountains were formed. We may understand subduction and various geological process, but since we were not there when the mountain was formed, we cannot scientifically explain it! Any REAL science teacher would know better than to think that only direct, real-time observation is valid.

[jb]

"""Nothing in evolution can either...because NO ONE was there to OBSERVE it! (Observation is the key component to the Scientific Method. All anyone can do is observe evidence that has ALREADY happened. Why are Evolutionists so scared?"""

Is anyone else SCARED that was written by a proclaimed high school science teacher?

THAT is scary.

[John]

"The questions I have left is when did it begin? If we evolved, then we evolved from something, right? And when did that something become life? What triggered it? And the real question is why do we not see proof of this transformation? When did the molecule leap from being something like water to life?"

And the answer is... We don't know for sure yet. And that's where the difference lies.

Scientific minded people are comfortable with saying "I don't know" and then going and and actually doing research to find out.

Religious ones on the other hand, say "God did it" or "It is God's will" and then stop asking questions and go out and enjoy all the benefits the scientific method has made available to us, all the while cursing science for not conforming to their particular belief system.

Sara:

"My point about the CHRISTmas tree vs. the evolution tree is that if you don't believe in Christ, then you have no business taking part in His birthday celebration. If you do take part without believing, that would make you a hypocrite, now wouldn't it?

You do know that December 25 (Christmas Day) was a pagan hoiliday (Winter Solstice) hijacked by Christians for their own purposes? As is the CHristmas Tree?

[John]

Randy,

It's funny you trot out Michael Behe. He stated in court that he thinks Astrology is a scientific theory... What a fool.

[John]

Religion should stay out of science classes. Creationism is NOT science. Why must you always insist on teaching it in science classes? "Teach the controversy" is total BS, because there IS NO CONTROVERSY. We're not telling you to stop teaching Creationism. Teach it in religion classes if you want. But stay out of science classes.

What you creationists don't realize is that the Theory of Evolution has withstood over a hundred years worth of scientific scrutiny. All it takes to destroy this theory is one single solid piece of evidence that runs counter to it. So far, none have come up.

Another thing you don't realize is even if somehow, the theory of evolution is disproven, IT DOES NOT MAKE CREATIONISM TRUE. Creationism is not the default setting.

We all know that all Creationists do it try to destroy the Theory of Evolution. Why not come up with your own Scientific Theory? Oh wait... you tried that with Intelligent Design and guess what... It's STILL not science.

[El Chip]

I agree with Ms Callaway TOE “should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life”... Because TOE has nothing to do with the origin of life. It's about speciation. You f-tard. It's no wonder our schools are in the shape they are. They are being run by morons.

[HeathenAngel]

Josh K,

Thank you.. It is a bit harsh.. and I cannot apologize for that. I really am getting tired of the fundies trying to send their ID-Trojan Horse into the schools to totally undermine science and education. It frustrates me so. When you consider all the harm that religion has caused, since man first became self aware and wanted to know where he came from, but didn't have the knowledge or tools to figure it out.. so created a myth to answer the question.. when all the atrocities, committed against mankind, since that time are amassed, it's enough to make one wild with rage at the suggestion that it should be inflicted further onto society by teaching it in school. (WOW, was that a run-on sentence or WHAT?)

I get a bit passionate about this topic because it is time for humans to lay down their silly superstitions and myths and realize that if we are going to ever achieve a "heaven" like place (mind you, I'm not saying it is possible.. I'm saying that IF it is, this is the only way), it's going to be by ousting divisive ideologies like religion and dogma. We are doing a great disservice to ourselves, and to the children we are charged with educating by NOT teaching them proper science.. by allowing them to leave our educational institutions with ANY doubt that religion, all of it is myth, fable and folklore... that the existence of a deity is silly and inane.

As the mother of a 16y/o, this is a near and dear topic to me. While I may be in Ohio, and this loon of a teacher is in Fla, this kind of thing sets a precedent that could very easily be used to change the curriculum here in Ohio.

I was raised as a good little god-bot. Went to church on Sundays.. twice. Was a member of the youth group, as a young adult I helped run the soundboard for the singers. I even took my son to church, started him in the youth group.. had him christened. Even after I "came out" as an atheist, I allowed my son to continue to go to church camp, because it's what he wanted to do. One day, he asked why I didn't go. SO I told him.

We had a very long discussion. It was not biased or one sided. I explained that some people believe in sky-faeries, some do not. If you think that is biased.. I also explained that these sky-faeries have different names, depending on which religion/philosophy you look at. Xstainity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Jainism... you get the idea. I explained that the "incident" of "my religion" while I was being raised, was little more than an accident of birth. As it is with all people. As someone already pointed out.. if Sara had been born in Saudi Arabia, she would most likely be arguing FOR allah and muhammed.. and if she had been born in Asia.. you get the idea. We had a VERY long talk. I introduced him to books by Prof. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennet, The Hitch and others (he's still not up on reading them all the way through.. but he has certainly gotten the ideas behind them).. and.. to keep it fair, I opened the buybull and pointed out some of the silliness. I did this for one reason.. it was actually the buybull itself that led to my atheism. I read, re-read, re-re-read and on and on.. every page. Cover to cover, ad nauseum. I can quote chapter and verse. And in reading it, I started to recognize the inconsistencies, the contradictions, the half truths, the all out lies and the atrocities.

That is why my advice to those who are "close but not close enough" to put their heads back in their buybulls. Those who are too far gone will never be able to grasp it. They read their buybulls with "Jayzus-Goggles". They read into the words, what their pastors or other clergy tell them to. Those who are not sure.. those who are starting to realize, "something's rotten in the state of Denmark".. those are the ones that through continued reading will start to see the flaws. Start asking questions and expecting answers.

Again.. you can tell that this is a very serious and passionate subject for me. I'm tired of seeing the destructive nature of religion inflict it's damage on society. So.. harsh... yeah, I am quite harsh and VERY sarcastic when it comes to dealing with fundies.

And if it appears that I am more harsh toward xstainity than other sects, it is because that is what I was raised with, it is what I am more familiar with.

[Josh Krupnick]

HeathenAngel,
I just wanted to say that, while your tone is a bit harsh and sarcastic, I really enjoyed reading your post. You really drove your point home and there isn't much anyone could say to refute that. Good post!

[Mike]

Thank [insert your deity here] for the internet! We can finally air out a few of America's civil-war era ideas on "why are we here?".

Much of what has been written is exactly why we're considered an ignorant, myopic nation, and why "shrub" is in the White House.

Anyone care for some salt pork?

[HeathenAngel]

Sara completely loses credibility with her lack of understanding in anything, demonstrating the latest in US History, here: "This country was founded on Christian ideals."

INCORRECT. It was founded on ideals of FREEDOM. The freedom to.. believe whatever it is your little heart desires. And some of the Founders and Framers, as it turns out, didn't believe in ANY deity.. some believed in more than one.. others believed that NATURE was the deity.

Ohhhhhhh yet again, so close and yet so far: "Check your history."

Checked.. now follow your own advice. You fail miserably.

Sara--"Christians were being persecuted all over Europe."

Point?

Sara--"That is why the founding fathers came here and created this country, so we could freely express our religious beliefs."

AH.. no. You are incorrect. It was so they wouldn't be persecuted. That's it. Then they set up this nation on the principles of FREEDOM. Freedom for all.. Yeah, they botched it a little where slavery was concerned, but eventually that was worked out. It had nothing to do with xstainity. Nothing at ALL. It was the ability to BELIEVE AS THEY WISHED without persecution. Sure, some of them were xstains.. but a fair few of them were NOT.

Sara--"Read the works of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Lincoln."

Ok, let's look at just ONE of those you listed. We CAN look at them all, if you so desire.. but I think these words from Jefferson should suffice to prove my point, and completely destroy yours.

Quotes by Jefferson:
"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
— Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
— Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."
— Thomas Jefferson

"The Christian God is a being of terrific character — cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust."
— Thomas Jefferson

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, 1823

So with that.. how solid is your misconception on the religious dogmas held by Thomas Jefferson?

Sara--"You can't read a single note from them without seeing God mentioned more than once."

Well, with the quotes I have posted, you are partially correct.. however those "mentionings" are not painting your sky-daddy in a positive light, now are they?

Sara--"It was a much better place when the states had official religions."

Yes yes.. much better. I mean, then it was much easier to hang and burn witches, torture people to make them confess to "sins" they didn't commit, so that the local clergy could earn his keep.. or at least look like he was.

Sara--"I wasn't even born here..."

Well, that answers a lot.

Sara-- "...and I know more about US history than most Americans I have met."

You might know "more".. but what you know is false and made-up. It is incorrect, ergo it doesn't count as knowledge.

Sara--"I got straight A's in history all through school - even AP history. I dare anyone to tell me they have read the Constitution and actually found the phrase 'separation of church and state', because the fact is that it is not in there."

Nope the phrase isn't there. However, Thomas Jefferson.. remember him.. he wrote an interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Quote from the letter, written by Thomas Jefferson, to the Danbury Baptist Crutch (not a typo):

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Hmmmm... "Wall of separation between Church & State". Interesting.

To demonstrate, further the intent of the Founders and Framers.. here's a snippet from the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11, to be exact:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Hmmm.. again.. "America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.." Not in any sense... got that?

The USofA is NOT a xstain (not a typo) nation, never was intended to be, should not be treated as such by introducing such pernicious dogma, disguised as science (creation and ID).

[Josh Krupnick]

God belongs in the hearts of men and women who believe. Religious teachings belong in the home and in the church.

Religious teachings do not belong in the science classroom.

It's that simple.

[jacob]

wow i am amazed at the christans sense that god is "the other side of the story" there are many more religions most of them make more sense than a wizard of oppression it is a desprate attempt from christan parents to keep their children from open thinking and science oh noes!!!!! i said it protect the children

[Just Tim]

Creationism/Intelligent Design are not theories. Evolution is a theory.

Evolution had made thousands of predictions which were verified. Most recently, scientists sought fossils of a suspected transitional specie, and knew (theoretically) when the creature existed and where. They determined that rocks fitting those criteria were in a certain location in Canada. And they searched and found them. There are quite literally many thousands of such items of research, each supporting evolution from a molecular-biology level to the scale of fossils.

Theories are testable, they make predictions, and can be disproved (called falsification).

That is what makes a theory. That explicitly means that creationism and intelligent design are not theories -- they make NO predictions and cannot be falsified (ie., there is no experimental outcome that demonstrate the contrary of the theory).

Creationism and Intelligent design have no "proof", they have no experiments going on in labs right now to demonstrate any predictions because they can't make any predictions. That is because they are simply religious doctrine.

This isn't a matter of presenting both sides, because only one side has science on their side, and the other side is trying to decieve people into thinking that a theory is just an idea, and that any idea, no matter how incredulous, is just as good. Creationism is as valid as saying that all humans are figments of a stapler's i-pod's playlist. Can you disprove that? Of course not. It's in print, once I hit POST, so it's got as much substance as the Biblical account.

[Paul]

Ms. Callaway's comments regarding her opposition to the proposed science standards are absolutely appalling in their ignorance and arrogance. Florida's current standards are among the absolute worst in the nation, and she wishes them to remain so. If she had any true integrity, or if she really cared for the future of the children of our state, she would immediately resign her position to avoid doing any further harm to the state educational system. I also find it absolutely horrifying that she so nonchalantly and arrogantly wishes to use the power of the government to impose her incredibly narrow and misguided religious viewpoint upon the the multitudes of children who attend public schools in this state. How dare she!

Ms. Callaway, you are unfit to be a member of the Florida SBOE. It is your duty to resign immediately. For the sake of our children, you should do so.

For those of you folks who insist on teaching the "controversy":

1. There is no controversy
2. Science is not determined in elementary and secondary school classrooms
3. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. I'm so sick of seeing this misconception.
4. A scientific theory isn't a guess. This is why we need the new standards, to combat such appalling ignorance.

If "Intelligent Design" had any scientific merit, its proponents would be doing science, and its results would be filtering down into the educational process like everything else. But they don't do that. Instead, its proponents are 90% lawyers who constantly try to impose a religious viewpoint from the bottom up. This is nothing but immoral political posturing and most definitely isn't science.

[Brandon]

Sara:

You are correct that we share 92% of our DNA with pigs, and up until phalanges begin to form, human and pig embryos are identical.

The reason for that is that almost all mammals at some point in the evolutionary chain shared a large number of common ancestors. Depending on environmental pressures different species began adapting and changing to provide maximum survivability.

That is the whole basis behind Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Darwin never stated that we were direct descendants of apes, that was a derisive caricature of his theory placed out by the religious conservatives of his time to discredit him.

And before any of you email forward reading people say anything about it, Darwin never did a "death bed conversion" denouncing his theories, there are well documented cases by people that were THERE that say no such thing took place.

Also for the people stating that this country was founded on Christian beliefs, that is not entirely true. Yes many historical documents do include God being mentioned many times, but they go on to say that people of all beliefs should be respected and that no one religion should be held about others.

What happens is selective reading, much like people do with the 2nd amendment, or this administration has done with reports on terrorist activity.

I have studied many religions, I have studied many sciences. Science is more reliable because it does not require suspension of disbelief. It does not require you to think that there is a magical man in the sky that snapped his fingers and created the world because he was bored I guess.

Science can be studied, there is evidence left behind. There aren't any half x/half y and there never will be. That is not how evolution works, thats not how science works, that not how the world works.

Please do some in depth studies of evolution before saying that it is an improvable theory. Don't mention irreducibly complex systems before actually looking into the species you are using as an example, the bombardier beetle is a favorite of fundamentalists and their ideas are proven wrong quite often.

[MonkeyBoy]

Also at the time of the founding, Deism, Masonry, and philosophical Gnosticism were closely associated. Gnosticism is an ancient religions. A philosophical version is that God is not perfect and did not create a perfect world. It is mankind's duty to improve on God's creation.

The upcoming movie "The Golden Compass" that all of the fundies are having fits about is based on the Gnostic religion.

The fundies are objecting to the philosophical beliefs of many of the founders of the US.

[MonkeyBoy]

kdr says "[the founding fathers] believed in something not based off of science".

Modern science was in its infancy then. The non-Christian Deist Benjamin Franklin was one of the first to really study electricity and his mistake in assigning + and - lives with us today.

The Deists may have been following a "God in the Cracks" philosophy. Since there existed at that time no science that could explain the origin of species or the world they may have attributed it to God.

Your question about how non life turned into life is also a "God in the cracks" argument. Current science is far from answering this question. Some current thinking is that DNA based life evolved from RNA based life and viruses may have been heavily involved. Though there yet no good understanding of what RNA based life was like. Much less if RNA life evolved from some earlier chemical life-like form and what that was like.

[Jerry]

Ms. Callaway, please see the included link. In the lawsuit Kitzmiller v. Dover, not only did Judge Jones find for the plaintiffs, he supported the irrefutable proof that intelligent design is a farce and has no basis in reality. Thank you.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/23137lgl20051220.html

[Snitter]

Would including creationism in schools mean that religions could then be rejected as scientifically infeasible? Are any of the culty little propagandists peddling the ID theory ready to accept that?
Are they ready to have the Adam and Eve routine disproved based on what we know of genetics? Or the narrowing of the gene pool a second time at the time of the flood? Creationists should be glad they're doctrines aren't part of the science curriculum; they get to avoid the rigors of scientific testing and palm everything off as a miracle or mystery.

[Quote Master]

"Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." - Matthew 22:21.
Public schools are under government control. The church is under God's control. Very easy logic. Why do alot of Christians directly disobey God at every turn, only to say it is in God's best interest? Doing such things and claiming they are God's will, when they obviously aren't, could be seen as blasphemy (irreverence of those things which are holy).

[Snitter]

"The questions I have left is when did it begin? If we evolved, then we evolved from something, right?"
I've always found this a bit of a stumbling block in understanding Creationists, maybe you can clear it up for me. So you think that life can't simply just exist without us seeing direct causality right? You consider the universe to complex to simply have happened? Yet God needs to be more intelligent, more complex in order to conceive and execute such a creation. Why does God get out of this iron-clad logic?

[Turbocramb]

"There are several Christians who are intelligent individuals."

KDR is right, there are probably four or five out there.