Smith dodges on science standards

As the debate over Florida's proposed science standards heats up, we tried again to get new education commissioner Eric J. Smith, a science teacher by training, to share his views on evolution, creation and intelligent design. (You might recall we ran the question by him in our weekend interview with Smith a couple of weeks ago.)

Here's what we got (via e-mail):

As a science teacher and department chair, how did you deal with the question of evolution in the classroom?

Given that it has been more than 30 years, I really couldn't speak to the specifics of my lesson plans, but as Commissioner my goal is to prepare students as best as possible for whatever career or post secondary educational choices they may make.

Do you believe evolution should be taught in the science curriculum?

This decision will ultimately be made by the State Board of Education. The public input period for the web concluded on Friday and we have two public hearings set to take place in January. I'm going to reserve my opinions on the matter until all of that input has been received and I have had a chance to review it.

Does the state need to include other "alternatives" such as creation or intelligent design and let the students decide for themselves?

Again, I'm going to reserve my opinions on the matter until I am able to review public input and listen to what is said during the public hearings.

Also, I heard the standards were being revised some more. Any info you can pass along about that?

The writers and framers will be meeting in mid-January to review the public and expert input that has been received and will determine at that time if revisions to the current draft are needed.

Comments

[Paul]

Smith is not doing his job. If I were to neglect my employment responsibilities, I'd get fired. Why is he still employed? He should either immediately clarify his statements in support of good science education, or step down in favor of someone in actual contact with reality.

[Pilgarlic]

Email him: commissioner@fldoe.org

I just did. Tell him to support the proposition that what ought to be taught in the science curriculum is science, and not superstition.

[Pilgarlic]

1) Scientists, not politicians, are and should be the authorities on science. 2) Scientific knowledge is advanced by consensus and peer review. 3) Natural selection has withstood generations of peer review. 4) 95% of the National Academy of Sciences REJECT god.

Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church. Amen.

[Tom]

No, those who subscribe to the Theory of Evolution are not a cabal of God-hating demons. They are using a very methodical process that guides discovery called the Scientific Method. An excellent primer on this can be found at Wikipedia. Search for Scientific Method. (Note: Keypad seems very stubborn in not allowing any external links and flagging them as spam. This needs to be addressed.)

Now, here's a suggestion. Using the process of the Scientific Method, please show how ID/Creationism is valid science and why it should be taught in a science classroom.

If it can be done, then ID/Creationism should be allowed.

Since it has yet to be so proven, then elected officials who are pushing the ID/Creationist agenda are attempting to violate the Constitution's Establishment clause.

That's not allowed. Federal courts and the Supreme Court have so ruled time and again.

[Webster]

Melissa, what about ID/Creationism is science? If it is not, why should "both" be taught in a science class? Science is for science, is it not?

So Smith is another one of these politicians who seemingly has to rely on others to make decisions in which he should be trained to make. Are you or are you not trained in science? If so, why do others make these decisions for you? Disgustingly weak willed people in positions of importance.

[Mencken Jr]

GeneG:

One of the things that actual scientists learn is to distrust ideas that they really want to believe in. They learn, from hard experience, how easy it is to see things that aren't there. And they learn how hard it is to let go of a cherished hypothesis when the data support some other hypothesis, but they also learn that ultimately the data *must* have the last word.

Mr. Strobel is not a scientist, and even people who call themselves "journalists" aren't very good at going with facts when those facts conflict with their personal wishes or beliefs. So while I'm sure he's a wonderful person, he doesn't have much that's really useful to say in this manufactured controversy.

melissa:

It's disingenuous at best (and lying at worst) to say that schoolchildren are capable of deciding between two theories when they're trying to learn about them. What "letting the kids decide" will do is open the door for sneaky evangelical "science" teachers to preach in biology class (or at least stack the deck according to their own personal biases and beliefs).

These are the facts: evolution has 120 years of testing and mountains of evidence that support it. Creationism has 300 years of rout and defeat and .. a bunch of loony right-wing "think tanks" supporting it. I don't know about you, but *I* know which one belongs in the science standards and in science class. And I know that when I get sick, I want to go to a doctor who knows about evolution and will give a wide berth to one who thinks that illness is "designed" by someone intelligent.

[Tom]

Uhh, Melissa, I was using Gravitational Theory to illustrate how your logic works.

Since you don't believe the Earth is flat or the center of the Universe (Which is what religion taught for centuries), then, isn't it true that - maybe - science is valid? Perhaps?

I've read the book of Revelation. What EXACTLY does that have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Can you prove to me scientifically that everything that was written in Revelation is coming true, or is that more of a gut instinct based on the fact that we're embroiled in an ill-advised war in the middle east?

I don't think that a lack of prayer in public schools is responsible for low graduation rates. Perhaps it's the School Board lowering standards, parents (the folks who ARE supposed to be teaching ethics and morality) are suing teachers who are 'too hard' on their darlings and a push away from vocational education to 'encourage' D students to do better on FCAT's so the schools can get a better grade and more money from the state.

Perhaps, instead of throwing taxpayer's money to defend the introduction of ID/Creationism into public schools and losing the court cases handily, that money could be better spent to give our kids a better education.

Or, is it just me?

This is a such a divisive issue that takes attention away from real issues that matter in today's public schools (ie job preparation skills, drop-out prevention, encouraging higher level thinking, etc). I don't see the harm in mentioning that not all people believe in evolution-there are alternative theories that exist, but evolution is the widely accepted theory in the scientific community. Refer them to their parents for more information about the alternative views. The scientific method (ie hypothesis, data collection, observation, analysis, variables,etc) is the cornerstone of what needs to be taught. All this attention on evolution vs. creation is a waste of time and serves only to pit people against one another. Why does the debate always boil down to such harsh demeaning criticism of one group over another. The Christians bash the evolution people as godless idiots and the other side belittles the religous people as nut jobs. No one is persuading anyone to think differently, so it is really just a big waste of time.

[Kenny]

Melissa,
It sounds like you think there are only two possible ideas of what created the world's current biodiversity - evolution or Judeo-christian creationism. The point you're missing is there are many other religions which have their own ideas about how we were created. If you think creationism should be taught in public schools as a way to be "fair" then you need to be fair to all the other religions too. Similarly you need to be "fair" to people who say the world is flat, or people you think the Holocaust was a big hoax. The "fair" thing to do in all these cases, according to your logic, is to teach both and let the kids decide.

Saying, "Read Revelations" and comparing it to the current state of the world isn't going to convince anyone. I've read Revelations but I haven't seen a third of the sea turn to blood, or locusts with human faces, or a seven-headed dragon throwing stars to the earth.

-Kenny

[GeneG]

As for this idea of evolution of evolution being science, that is the issue. Tom, I appreciate what you are saying and have no argument with that. What I do argue is that it is just as wrong to teach evolution as "fact" (and it is taught as fact) as it would be to force religion on anyone. (By the way, the teaching of creation is not teaching religion, regardless as to what the courts have determined.) Does anyone out there believe that the courts are always right? I continue to ask if there be anyone who writes these comments against creationism who has actually read a book on creationism, or have you simply read books on evolution?

[Tom]

Melissa...

What does the book of Revelation have to do with the creation myth? Evolution?

No, you didn't say the Earth was flat. But, you did say:

*Why not teach both and let the indivudial decide what they feel is logicial... personally the entire thought that we evolved from a fish,or monkey makes no sense! Common sense even if you don't beleive in creation has to tell you we are too complex and to much of a miracle to "evolve"!*

I was merely pointing out that your argument would negate anything that didn't 'make sense' or didn't appeal to 'common sense.'

Since while standing on Earth you can't determine that the world is spherical, following your logic would dictate that the world is flat.

I was merely using the Theory of Gravity as an illustration.

I'm also concerned about your 'godism' reference.

Do you know why our country was established without a state religion? Because, back in Europe, Kings, bishops and others in authority used to be able to torture and kill those who didn't believe.

I thank God every night that the founding fathers of this nation thought fit to separate church from state. This way, people with extremist viewpoints would not be able to punish those who disagree.

Think about it.

I bid you peace.

Melissa,
It appears that when you were in school you paid less attention in spelling class than you did in science.

Hey, I was taught that 2X3=6. I believe we should also teach that some people believe that 2X3=14 and let the students decide!

[melissa]

Tom- you said: Science isn't about throwing out multiple ideas and giving kids the 'choice' of what to believe.

I beleive I did say to give the indivudial the choice... I never said to teach the "controversity". Teach both I think a person has the right to make their own decision.

Also....your comment-All of them have have the same amount of scientific proof as the Abrahamic (Jewish/Christian/Muslim) Creation Myth.

Read revelations and tell me if the bible is a "myth" everything that has been predicted to happen is happening!

Also I did not say the earth was flat nor do I beleive that it is... this has nothing to do with weather the earth is flat or not! This has to do with weather or not kids should be taught both aspects creation or evolution. I personally think that if the schools want to do this than they should do both! Why not what will this hurt maybe alittle "godism" will do these kids some good! You have your opinion I have mine.

[Tom]

Melissa -

OK. I want Hindu and Shinto creation mythology - ONLY - to be taught.

Those and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

All of them have have the same amount of scientific proof as the Abrahamic (Jewish/Christian/Muslim) Creation Myth.

Science isn't about throwing out multiple ideas and giving kids the 'choice' of what to believe.

Science is science. Religion is religion. "Teaching the controversy" is civics.

Should we teach kids that the world is flat because it doesn't 'make sense' that we could be on a spherical globe? Should kids have the right to decide if 'Flat Earthism' is the right thing? Doesn't 'common sense' dictate that things fall flat to the Earth just as they do on a flat table top?

If so, we are ignoring Scientific Theory and raising a group of developmentally-challenged thinkers.

Florida already has too many educational challenges that need to be addressed. Let's not add religious boosterism to the mix.

Besides, teaching Creation/ID in schools has been struck down - time and again - in Federal courts and the Supreme Court as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Let's not waste our money defending a lost cause in the courts and spend it on:

1) Increasing the High School Graduation Rate
2) Producing more literate graduates
3) Returning vocational education to schools as an option for kids who aren't planning on attending college.

Let's give our kids a chance to have a successful life after graduation.

[melissa]

Also dosen't the need ( most of us have) to worship a higher power prove that we were created???

[melissa]

Also dosen't the need to worship something more powerful then ourselves prove that we were created?

[melissa]

Why not teach both and let the indivudial decide what they feel is logicial... personally the entire thought that we evolved from a fish,or monkey makes no sense! Common sense even if you don't beleive in creation has to tell you we are too complex and to much of a miracle to "evolve"!

[Concerned mom]

To Steve: They actually had Santa at my children's school yesterday handing out candy canes. We do not believe in Santa. I think having Santa there is crossing the lines of having religion in the classroom. Last year in 1st grade my son got into an arguement with another child on if there was a Santa. The kid who said there was a Santa, stayed in class, while my son was told he could not go back in class until he promised not to say there was no Santa. The other child was not told to stop saying there was a Santa. They should have both been told that was a discussion for at home, but instead mine was the only one disciplined. We do celebrate Christmas, but not Santa and none of it belongs in school.

[Tom]

Hey, GeneG. How you doing?

I think we need to understand what the issue is here. The Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have both ruled that creationism and ID are attempts to establish a religion in public school, and they violate the Constitution's establishment clause.

No matter how devoutly held the beliefs, the Creationist/ID agenda boils down to an effort to introduce Christian beliefs into public school.

Florida or Pinellas County attempting to introduce these faith-based lessons into school is just going to divert scarce taxpayer money from pressing issues such as terrible graduation rates, illiterate graduates and a lack of vocational knowledge for those students who aren't college bound.

Fight these battles and we're going to have a much bigger problem for Florida's future.

[GeneG]

What answer do you evolutionists have for all the scientists who believe in creationism and intelligent design and believe that evolution is not true science at all? Creationism is no more "religion" than is evolution, and perhaps not as much so.

[GeneG]

Actually, there isn't much difference between the case for a real Santa or Easter Bunny and the case for evolution. What answer do you evolutionists have for all the scientists who believe in creationism and intelligent design and believe that evolution is not true science at all? Creationism is no more "religion" than is evolution, and perhaps not as much so.

[steve]

Lets teach about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too, and while we are in Florida, how about the case for a real Mickey Mouse?

"Keep your religion out of my schools, and I'll keep my science out of your church, deal?"

[GeneG]

Those who believe in evolution ignorance when they make statements like "whiny creationists who don't have anything but temper tantrums to back their cause." Read THE CASE FOR A CREATOR by Lee Strobel (just one of dozens of great books) to see just how foolish that statement is. He was an "honest" skeptic who became a believer by examining the evidence.

[GeneG]

You show your ignorance when you say "whiny creationists who don't have anything but temper tantrums to back their cause." Read THE CASE FOR A CREATOR by Lee Strobel (just one of dozens of great books) to see just how foolish your statement is. He was an "honest" skeptic who became a believer by examining the evidence. You obviously have never done so. Truth is, it is those who believe in the THEORY of evolution who have no evidence to support your case.

Sadly, the issue is much more important than what you might think. Because you obviously think that evolution is backed by science, what do you say to the multitude of scientists who believe in creation?

Since there is no scientific basis for evolution (which you will realize if you do a little research by reading something other than your pro evolution literature), and there is great evidence of a master designer, you might want to learn something about Him.

I suspect that you, like many, "want" to believe in evolution as you don't want to be accountable to a Holy God. Even so, read the book I recommended above, or any of the others like EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by John McDowell and you will see that your "want" can hurt you, especially if it keeps you from accepting God and His provision of forgiveness for your sin.

If this seems to you like the whining of a creationist, I am sorry for you that you would feel that way. I do think it sad that there are millions like yourself who have been deceived by the teaching of evolution and due to this have possibly distanced yourself from considering your creator.

Let's face it, you would NEVER come to even an assumption of evolution were you to approach the subject scientifically and not have all those books telling you about what happened millions or billions of years ago, like they had some sort of camera there to record it. Please know I'm not desirous of insulting your intelligence -- the so-called science books that have been in our public schools for the past 40 or more years have already done that. They have shown you pictures of the stages in the devolopment of man from ape and you bought it, hook, line, and sinker. They told you that "nothing" exploded and ultimately produced all we have today and you bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

Think about these things and then ask yourself, "Who is it that must have faith to believe?" The correct answer is "both of us." Who is it that has the greatest amount and quality of evidence to support that faith and the answer must be "the creationist."

I know you cannot have read the books by the creationists or you would not say "who don't have anything . . . to back their cause." I have read much of the evolution literature and recognize that they see "micro" evolution and allow that to convince them of "macro" evolution. Deviation within species does not support macro evolution.

[Alaskamountainman]

I don't understand the big deal. If id or creationism is going to be introduced into the curriculum, then just do what needs to be done, and that is to sue the board. We already know what the outcome will be. Not that they care, in that they defend themselves with your money. Funny, huh?

[Alaskamountainman]

I don't understand the big deal. If id or creationism is going to be introduced into the curriculum, then just do what needs to be done, and that is to sue the board. We already know what the outcome will be. Not that they care, in that they defend themselves with your money. Funny, huh?

[Alaskamountainman]

I don't understand the big deal. If id or creationism is going to be introduced into the curriculum, then just do what needs to be done, and that is to sue the board. We already know what the outcome will be. Not that they care, in that they defend themselves with your money. Funny, huh?

[Mencken Jr]

Science doesn't depend on public opinion, but politicians and political appointees find themselves swayed by whiny creationists who don't have anything but temper tantrums to back their cause.

[Tom]

*Snip* Does the state need to include other "alternatives" such as creation or intelligent design and let the students decide for themselves?

Again, I'm going to reserve my opinions on the matter until I am able to review public input and listen to what is said during the public hearings. *snip*

Weasel.

Since when does science depend on public opinion? Shesh...