And the decision is ...

Evolution officially is a "scientific theory" in Florida's curriculum.

The State Board of Education narrowly adopted new science standards with the added language, with some members saying the decision will leave the idea open to questions by students, while others contended the wording is a clear attempt by creationists to water down science instruction.

The vote was 4-3, with Chairman T. Willard Fair and members Linda Taylor, Phoebe Raulerson and Kathleen Shanahan in support.

"Do I believe in the theory of evolution? Absolutely," Shanahan said. "But I also believe there's more to explore."

Members Roberto Martinez and Akshay Desai voted no because they backed the proposed standards as written, while Donna Callaway was opposed because she wanted the board to go even further toward "academic freedom."

Said Martinez: "We're watering down the best possible standards we could have to appease a certain segment of society."

What’s next is unclear.

Both sides have threatened lawsuits. And at least three lawmakers - Rep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna, Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park and Sen. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville - have said they may file legislation if the board approves the proposed standards without significant changes.

Tuesday’s vote followed weeks of mounting drama. The proposed new standards were unveiled in October. But it wasn’t until late November, when the Florida Baptist Witness published comments from board member Donna Callaway, that the debate began in earnest. Callaway told the Jacksonville-based newspaper that she could not vote in favor of the proposed standards because evolution "should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of origin of life."

From that point on, tension escalated. More than a dozen North Florida school boards filed resolutions in opposition, with some saying they wanted evolution taught as a "theory" and others saying they wanted inclusion of faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design. David C. Gibbs III, the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo’s parents and siblings, also jumped into the fray, arguing that the state’s position on evolution was so dogmatic, it crossed the line between science and faith.

On the other side, scientists rallied. Among the organizations that signalled support: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, the American Institute for Biological Sciences, the Florida Academy of Sciences and the Florida Citizens for Science.

State education officials said their aim was to create world-class science standards.

The previous standards, written in 1996, didn’t mention the word "evolution" and were slammed by scientists as vague and shallow. Their reputation hit rock-bottom in 2005, when the Fordham Institute, a respected national think tank, gave them an F, in part for giving short shrift to evolution "in response to religious and political pressures."

"A number of states have resisted this madness in their science standards but too many are fudging or obfuscating the entire basis on which biology rests," said the report, which was chiefly authored by biologist Paul Gross, former head of the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, Mass., and a former provost at the University of Virginia. (Gross told the St. Petersburg Times in November that the proposed new standards were "an excellent change.")

Also driving the state: The poor showing of Florida students on state and national science tests. An economy increasingly driven by high-tech, science-based industries. And the need for better, basic science literacy in a state where pressing issues - from hurricanes to global warming to wetlands destruction - require an understanding of natural systems and how they work.

The Department of Education left the heavy lifting for writing the standards to a 68-member committee dominated by scientists and science teachers. The committee dubbed evolution one of a handful of "big ideas" that students must grasp to be well grounded in good science. And in the draft standards, it described evolution as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" and one "supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."

In a letter to the board last week, 40 members of the committee wrote, "There is no longer any valid scientific criticism of the theory of evolution."

Conservative Christians have led the opposition. But they have public opinion on their side. A St. Petersburg Times poll released last week found 22 percent of registered voters statewide wanted public schools to teach only evolution, while 50 percent wanted only creationism or intelligent design to be taught.

In a last-ditch attempt at compromise, Department of Education officials floated a proposed wording change Friday, offering to include the words "scientific theory" wherever appropriate in the standards, including in the evolution language. But representatives of both sides stuck to their guns.

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[Drew Smith]

Nick wrote: "...saying that science is the only way to conclude that this is how the world began and it has nothing to do with a creator -- that it's all some kind of cosmic accident and our lives a brief and meaningless just doesn't fly with me."

Since the science standards (or science in general) make no such claims, what, exactly, is your point? For all science knows, we were all created 5 minutes ago with false memories of a past that never took place.

[Drew Smith]

I wrote: "First, atheism isn't a faith. It's the *lack* of theistic belief."

Nick responded [irrelevant ad hominem omitted]: "Modern atheism is just as much a faith and belief system as any other, in fact, it's become militant and belligerent. You can thank Dawkins and Hitchens, to name only a few, for that."

That particular *individuals* may be "militant" about their *personal* positions in regard to theism does not mean that *atheism* itself is a faith or a belief system. It is neither. To claim otherwise is as illogical as would claiming that the fact that someone who "militantly" advocates New Math means that New Math must be a faith or belief system.

If you wanted to support an argument that atheism is a "faith", you would first have to support the argument that it is a "belief". However, you would fail immediately, since atheism is defined as the *lack* of theistic belief (atheism is "without theism"). It makes no statement as to what the person *believes*.

[Chris W]

Nick:

Glad you liked the joke. And regarding the burr under your saddle, I figured that's what it was.

Saying that there is or isn't a creator is a very different thing from coming up with a well-supported theory that doesn't *require* the continual intervention of a creator for things to unfold. The former puts the sayer (either atheist or fundamentalist) in the awkward spot of having to continually prove his/her statement with basically no way to do it yet. Worse, it puts the sayer on the road to cherry-pick facts to fit their ideas instead of changing their ideas to fit the facts. (Creationists are most guilty of this cherry-picking and outright lying; evangelistic atheists like Dawkins tend to limit themselves to sewing a coat onto a button instead of making up a bunch of new buttons to support the coat.)

[Nick]

Chris, It's hard to not be somewhat insulted when you use terms like "bumper-sticker eschatology" (your term, not mine)because of the inference of discounting eschatology altogether. As you know, for the believer, this is paramount. I will say this;even in the harshness and trivializing of your synthesis I suppose there is a molecule of truth in this respect; the lack of a place for the creation story is being dissed, in a sense --and that is a burr in my saddle. You have to remember, like you, I have the best of intentions here. I too, want what's best for the children. You know that I have always advocating teaching religion in church, and science in science class, and I stick with that premise. But I still maintain that saying that science is the only way to conclude that this is how the world began and it has nothing to do with a creator -- that it's all some kind of cosmic accident and our lives a brief and meaningless just doesn't fly with me.

We know the world is evolving, and we know that teaching evolution is important to learn in school. That said, we need to come to a common ground as to how we can do so without imposing either side's dogmas regarding a creator or lack thereof.

As for atheism; 20 years ago I would have agreed with you, but today -- it's a whole new world and I'm afraid your technical definition has *evolved* into mine -- even if the dictionary has not caught up with the times. So yes, Drew is technically correct, but is he accurate in his thinking?

Good joke though!

[Chris W]

Nick, Drew is technically right. The word "atheism" breaks down to mean "absence of a belief system". You are also right that there are people who label themselves atheists who proselytize others and have turned that lack of theism into a belief system. Maybe you've heard this old joke:

Q: What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness?
A: Someone who knocks on your door at 8:00 AM for no reason.

[Chris W]

Nick:

You didn't really answer my question. What I was trying to synthesize there wasn't the story of sacrifice and redemption; it was the reason teaching evolution in the schools without making a special place for "intelligent design" puts a burr under your saddle.

You have basically come right out and admitted that evolution is sound science and ID/creationism isn't. So the issue must be philosophical or religious. Being a lapsed Presbyterian, I recognize the bumper-sticker eschatology you presented (not room for much else here, don't be insulted). But it wasn't really an on-point answer. You can do better than that, my friend.

[Nick]

Drew wrote:"First, atheism isn't a faith. It's the *lack* of theistic belief. Second, Darwin hasn't been "hijacked" at all. The vast majority of those who accept evolution are *theists*."

Dude, you're living in a dream world. Perhaps you should lift your head from under your science books and your computer and take a good look at the world around you. Modern atheism is just as much a faith and belief system as any other, in fact, it's become militant and belligerent. You can thank Dawkins and Hitchens, to name only a few, for that. Wake up!

[Nick]

Chris wrote: "Man is naturally sinful and disinclined to follow the Word of God, so you have to get rid of anything that gives him an excuse to follow his own path instead of the Path of the Church. Even more importantly, you can't let children get infected with that, or they can *never* become indoctrinated (saved).

Do I have that about right?"

No, not at all, here's how it goes: God became man, He lived amongst us, died for our sins, saving us from death. He then rose from the dead, ascended in to heaven, before doing so he established the Church through Peter. He will come again to judge the living and the dead (including you)and His kingdom will have no end.

It's not about getting rid of anything. Man didn't institute the Church, God did.

You may have a handle on science, but you know very little about Christianity.

Also, regarding the hijacking of Darwin; I didn't segue into anything, it's been my position all along. You keep bringing up whining, it's called protesting and it's valid to do so. Or do you think the scientific community is too much of an elitist group to question? Clearly you are not open minded to anything other tan your own opinion.

[Drew Smith]

I wrote: "And being based upon faith, creationism does not constitute *science*, which means that its arguments, from a *scientific* perspective, are necessarily flimsy and insubstantial."

Nick responded: "That's fair to say from a scientific perspective"

That's the only perspective relevant to determining what content should be taught in a public school *science* classroom.

***

Nick wrote: "you and Chris fail to acknowledge that Darwin has been hijacked by another faith (atheism)"

First, atheism isn't a faith. It's the *lack* of theistic belief. Second, Darwin hasn't been "hijacked" at all. The vast majority of those who accept evolution are *theists*.

***

Nick wrote: "I sense a denial in this notion that there's anything political, ideological or faith based about this issue."

Quite the contrary, I am well aware that *creationists* have political, ideological, and faith-based motivations for their side of the issue. That's why their position isn't relevant to determining what should bee taught in a science classroom. As for me (and many, many others), my position is about science. Not about politics, not about ideology, and not about faith. About science.

***

Nick wrote: "I've said this over and over -- it's not only about science."

For the creationists? Yes, we know. That's why their position isn't relevant to determining what should be taught in a public school science classroom. For me, it's about science. And when one sticks to arguing the *science*, then one quickly determines that the creationist side isn't relevant. That's why they lost in Dover.

[Chris W]

Nick:

So you're segueing into the "atheism kidnapped Darwin" stuff now, eh? It's like you're following a script. ;-)

I suspect that's what's really been bothering you all along. Let me see if I can synthesize is:

Man is naturally sinful and disinclined to follow the Word of God, so you have to get rid of anything that gives him an excuse to follow his own path instead of the Path of the Church. Even more importantly, you can't let children get infected with that, or they can *never* become indoctrinated (saved).

Do I have that about right?

[Chris W]

How can I criticize a movie without having seen it? Because I follow the media (on both sides) of this, and there really isn't anything new to be publicized. You've got your whiny "I can't get published as a creationist! I'm a good researcher, so it *must* be a conspiracy!" screed. You've got your over-hyped promo and trailer. You've got Ben Stein, who's a walking Jeopardy contestant but not an actual academic.

Wikipedia has him listed as "actor, comedian, and game show host" and formerly a "lawyer, law professor, and White House speechwriter". That's just the life-experience profile that so many creationists have - they have lots of experience twisting facts to fit into a legal theory, they tend to be fluent in language, and they're convinced that facts mean what they want them to mean.

[Nick]

Drew,

That's fair to say from a scientific perspective, however you and Chris fail to acknowledge that Darwin has been hijacked by another faith (atheism) -- and that is very much at play here. The sooner you both come to grips with it, the sooner the debate will come to a mutual conclusion of closer. I have no doubt you both are sincere in your motives, but I sense a denial in this notion that there's anything political, ideological or faith based about this issue. I've said this over and over -- it's not only about science.

[Drew Smith]

Chris wrote: "I know how actual science is done, so when I criticize creationist 'arguments' as flimsy and insubstantial, I know maybe a little more about why they're bogus than you do."

Nick responded: "Creationism is based on faith and reason..."

And being based upon faith, creationism does not constitute *science*, which means that its arguments, from a *scientific* perspective, are necessarily flimsy and insubstantial.

[Chris W]

Nick:

You said...

"Creationism is based on faith and reason, you know nothing more than anyone else when faith is involved."

and I can't think of a better response to anyone who wants creationism discussed in any form in a science class, even in the (thin) guise of "criticisms of evolution".

[Chris W]

Nick:

How would I know? I have a small collection of books written by creationists and have read them, from Henry Morris' "The Genesis Flood" to "Debating Design" edited by Michael Behe. They all, more or less, follow the same pattern in supporting the "argument from ignorance" by acting as critics of existing science rather than as originators of anything new and useful. They're like eunuchs in a harem, able to comment on the events at hand without being able to materially contribute to them. (It's what you'd expect from a group of "scholars" whose whole reason for being is to make reality fit into a religious framework.)

[Nick]

Chris:

I've been away for a few days, but I wanted to address your rebuttal.

You said: "Start throwing around terms like "leftist public schools and universities" and you make yourself sound really foolish."

The majority of schools in this country are left leaning institutions -- that's not a foolish statement. To say the contrary is, in my view, foolish, or naive. The same can be said for the media.

You said: "FYI, I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry and a graduate degree in experimental psychology (from a real university). Along the way I have accumulated considerable experience doing computer simulations (including more than a bit of work with neural networks and genetic algorithms)."

Fair enough, that answers my question of how you come to your conclusions, I accept that.

You wrote: "I know how actual science is done, so when I criticize creationist "arguments" as flimsy and insubstantial, I know maybe a little more about why they're bogus than you do."

Creationism is based on faith and reason, you know nothing more than anyone else when faith is involved.

You wrote: "As for Rampant Films, if you're depending on a movie put together by Nixon's old speech-writer to save creationism's bacon then you're really backing the wrong horse."

He's much more than an old speech writer, not that has anything to do with it. He's an ex teacher, so I think he has an insight to the educational system. It's not creationism's bacon that needs saving here. The last time I checked, more people believed in creationism than Darwinism.

You then wrote, and this was most interesting:
"It isn't really new information; it's a rehash, and it will be greeted with the laughter and yawns it will deserve."

How do you know that Chris? Have you seen the movie? The movie doesn't come out until April. Funny, the movie's premise is how Darwinists are stifling the debate -- and here you are discounting the entire project as not being new information and then discrediting it as laughable. I know you have impressive degrees and all, but I just wonder how you know this if you haven't seen the movie.

You wrote: "As to your last question, the answer is more lengthy than a simple "yes" or "no". I can't answer for anyone who would stifle an actual debate; but the proper forum for that debate is in the academic literature, subject to peer review and the only valid way that a scientific theory wins legitimacy."

The movie points out how scientists are being denied publication in academic and scientific publications -- because of political reasons and not scientific ones.

You said: "This business of trying to force the issue through legal and political means instead of ID or creationism earning its wings by actually explaining more things better than evolution can smacks of people who know, deep down, that they're peddling nonsense and are trying to change the rules so they have a chance."

It seems to me that it's the Darwinists that are guilty of using legal and political means here to control the debate and without hearing all sides and not being privy to their arguments and scientific evidence, how would you know that they're peddling nonsense and are trying to change the rules so they have a chance?

[Chris W]

Drew:

Larry sounds like someone who's read one or two lay (creationist-written) books or pamphlets and is reciting what he's read. I don't think he really understands them; I think he has them memorized. That's why he keeps repeating and reciting instead of expounding and explaining.

[Drew Smith]

I wrote: "Yes, discussed in academic fora, such as scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Not in K-12 environments, where students lack the necessary education to determine whether or not something is a 'weakness'."

Larry Fafarman responded: "Students are not as dumb as you think."

Straw man argument on your part, Larry. I made no claim that students were "dumb". I specifically pointed out that they lack the necessary *education*. Or do you really think that education and intelligence are the same thing?

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "bozo."

I responded: "Being insulting here won't help your position any. Quite the contrary."

Larry Farfarman responded: "What do you expect when you say dumb things like, 'when do you plan to start'."

It wasn't a dumb thing. I was pointing out that you have yet to make a valid argument. And your responding with an insult of "bozo" does nothing to suggest that you have yet presented a valid argument. Again, quite the contrary.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "Judge Jones is a stupid idiot..."

I responded: "Again, being insulting doesn't help your position any."

Larry Fafarman responded: "Well, he is. The guy's a jerk."

No, Larry, he's someone who disagrees with you on the issue at hand. Your calling him a "stupid idiot" and a "jerk" indicates that you can't find it in yourself to disagree with him without your engaging in juvenile name calling. Why is that?

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "He said that organized religions are not 'true' religions."

No, Larry, he didn't. He said that the *Founders* believed that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry". He was *quoting*, Larry.

***

I wrote: "And this is prejudicial because...? There was certainly nothing in Jones' Dover decision that suggested that his ruling depended on the defendants being affiliated with 'organized religions'."

Larry Fafarman responded: "He was supposed to be neutral towards organized religions and he was not."

You have yet to demonstrate that he wasn't. More to the point, the man *attends* Lutheran services. Or are you saying that the Lutheran church isn't an organized religion?

***

I wrote: "There is no precedent in law that requires a judge to create new language for findings if he is in agreement with proposed language"

Larry Fafarman responded: "A judge is supposed to show that he considered arguments from both sides, not just one side."

If you'll look at his 139-page decision, you'll see numerous occasions where he indicates his consideration of the losing side's argument. But *considering* is not *agreeing with*. Did you think they were the same thing?

***

I wrote: "The Supreme Court has applied the Lemon test as recently as 2000, and it has left the application of it to lower courts in other cases. Therefore, there was no problem in Jones' applying the Lemon test to the case."

Larry Fafarman responded: "Courts are not required to use the Lemon test..."

And they are not forbidden from doing so.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "...and using it is a bad idea -- the test sucks."

Is that your idea of a compelling argument against the Lemon test? If so, your argument needs work.

[Chris Woodard]

Larry:

It's a reasonable request, called "agreeing to terms". You can't complain about nobody meeting your criteria if you won't tell us what those criteria are. It's like being in an argument with your wife or girlfriend and having her say "If you don't know what's wrong I'm *not* going to tell you!"

As to this:

"The same problem could exist regardless of the origin of the new trait -- the new trait could be fatal or harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism, and even when not fatal or harmful in such absence, the new trait would not confer a natural-selection benefit during such absence."

You're going to have to do better. You go from 'could' in the first sentence to 'wound not' in the last and thinking (maybe) we wouldn't notice.

This, btw, is what makes me think you don't have a good handle on the material you're describing. It sounds like you're reciting it, rather than explaining it.

[Larry Fafarman]

Chris W. said,
--"Why don't you tell us what would be satisfactory rebuttal and we'll go from there. "--

Sheeeesh -- here I have been claiming that there is no satisfactory rebuttal and now you want me to give one.

In an earlier comment, you said,
--"try assuming that the bright colors and the digestive systems (and the deep pollen containers, for that matter) weren't always there in final form but developed from other traits."--

The same problem could exist regardless of the origin of the new trait -- the new trait could be fatal or harmful in the absence of the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism, and even when not fatal or harmful in such absence, the new trait would not confer a natural-selection benefit during such absence.

[Chris W]

Um, Larry? You said:

"No one has yet satisfactorily rebutted my views about co-evolution."

I have addressed your views repeatedly. Why don't you tell us what would be satisfactory rebuttal and we'll go from there. Lay out pieces of evidence, and then tell us what you would accept as valid counter-evidence of each piece.

Or, do you just want us to keep trying one thing and another and guess while you keep saying "Nope, that ain't it"? Because if that's the game you have in mind, then you have rebutted it yourself by retreating into the coward's realm of unanswerables.

[Larry Fafarman]

a nameless commenter said,
--"Yes, discussed in academic fora, such as scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Not in K-12 environments, where students lack the necessary education to determine whether or not something is a "weakness"."--

Students are not as dumb as you think. Just present them with arguments from both sides and let them decide for themselves.

--"Larry Fafarman responded: "...bozo."

Being insulting here won't help your position any. Quite the contrary."--

What do you expect when you say dumb things like, "when do you plan to start."

--"Larry Fafarman responded: "Judge Jones is a stupid idiot..."

Again, being insulting doesn't help your position any. "--

Well, he is. The guy's a jerk. He said that organized religions are not "true" religions. He complained that critics of his Dover decision did not mention the importance of "judicial independence."

--"And this is prejudicial because...? There was certainly nothing in Jones' Dover decision that suggested that his ruling depended on the defendants being affiliated with "organized religions". "--

He was supposed to be neutral towards organized religions and he was not. By no stretch of the imagination was his Dickinson College "true religion" speech neutral towards organized religions.

--"There is no precedent in law that requires a judge to create new language for findings if he is in agreement with proposed language"--

A judge is supposed to show that he considered arguments from both sides, not just one side.

--"And as Judge Jones *explained* (in his own words) his reasoning as to *why* he agreed with the proposed findings, you're complaining over nothing."--

Judge Jones just made a few changes in wording in the ID-as-science section of the Dover opinion -- the ideas were not his own. However, I think it is OK for judges to copy the litigants' briefs so long as the arguments from both sides are considered.

--"The Supreme Court has applied the Lemon test as recently as 2000, and it has left the application of it to lower courts in other cases. Therefore, there was no problem in Jones' applying the Lemon test to the case."--

Courts are not required to use the Lemon test and using it is a bad idea -- the test sucks.

--"Let us know when you've got some to offer."--

No one has yet satisfactorily rebutted my views about co-evolution.

[Chris W]

Larry:

You said "And the students are as susceptible to Darwinist propaganda as they are to creationist propaganda."

The difference is that Darwinian evolution isn't propaganda; it has actual facts to back it up, and its core principles are strong enough to stand being extended and adapted as new evidence is seen and new questions are generated.

And your "co-evolution" example has been addressed by me (and more than once). I am forced to conclude from your near-verbatim repetition that you either don't really understand it or you hope to engage in "proof by assertion" and wear the rest of us down so we'll let it slide.

[Drew Smith]

Chris wrote: "Students (especially in the elementary and middle school grades) don't have that knowledge and experience and are much more susceptible to creationist propaganda and stupid but plausible-sounding 'criticisms'"

Larry Fafarman responded: "The details of Darwinism are taught mainly in high school, not in elementary and middle school."

Let's look at the new standards and how they are represented at various elementary and middle-school levels:

Grades 3 and 5: BIG IDEA 15: Diversity and Evolution of Living Organisms A. Earth is home to a great diversity of living things, but changes in the environment can affect their survival. B. Individuals of the same kind often differ in their characteristics and sometimes the differences give individuals an advantage in surviving and reproducing.

Grades 6 and 7: BIG IDEA 15: Diversity and Evolution of Living Organisms A. Evolution is the organizing principle of life science. B. Evolution is supported by multiple forms of evidence. C. Natural Selection is a primary mechanism leading to change over time in organisms.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "And the students are as susceptible to Darwinist propaganda..."

You haven't demonstrated any "Darwinist propaganda" yet.

I wrote: "You haven't demonstrated any 'weaknesses' yet. When do you plan to start?"

Larry Fafarman responded: "Things must be discussed to determine whether or not they are weaknesses"

Yes, discussed in academic fora, such as scientific conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Not in K-12 environments, where students lack the necessary education to determine whether or not something is a "weakness".

***

Larry Fafarman responded: "...bozo."

Being insulting here won't help your position any. Quite the contrary.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "And discussing apparent weaknesses of evolution helps to develop students' critical thinking skills."

You said that already, but as has been pointed out to you, K-12 students aren't in a position to have that kind of discussion. At the K-12 level, students are only in a position to be given a simplified version of the best available science as determined by the scientific research community.

***

I wrote: "No, what Jones banned was the attempt to teach "intelligent design" (a religiously-motivated concept) as if it were science."

Larry Fafarman responded: "Judge Jones is a stupid idiot..."

Again, being insulting doesn't help your position any.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "[Jones] showed extreme prejudice against the Dover defendants ... by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not 'true' religions."

And this is prejudicial because...? There was certainly nothing in Jones' Dover decision that suggested that his ruling depended on the defendants being affiliated with "organized religions". The point made was that the Founders had a *reason* to keep the State from becoming entangled with religion (namely, to prevent the State from being used as a tool to support a particular church's doctrine). By keeping the State away from religion, it became left up to each *individual* to decide *for themselves* what kind of religious beliefs they wanted to have for themselves. Not one that the State wanted them to have.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "Furthermore, the ID-as-science section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was ghostwritten by the ACLU."

No "ghostwriting" was involved. Jones did indeed incorporate language originally prepared by the ACLU as part of its proposed findings. That's because he *agreed* with their proposed findings. There is no precedent in law that requires a judge to create new language for findings if he is in agreement with proposed language. And as Judge Jones *explained* (in his own words) his reasoning as to *why* he agreed with the proposed findings, you're complaining over nothing.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "the Lemon test has fallen into disfavor."

The Supreme Court has applied the Lemon test as recently as 2000, and it has left the application of it to lower courts in other cases. Therefore, there was no problem in Jones' applying the Lemon test to the case.

***

I wrote: "No, "Darwinists" believe in teaching the best available science, as supported by the best available evidence."

Larry Fafarman wrote: "There is nothing wrong with teaching the 'second-best' available science..."

Let us know when you've got some to offer. As "intelligent design" isn't even *worst* science (it's not science at all), it has no place in a K-12 science classroom.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "there is nothing wrong with teaching scientific criticisms of the 'best available science'."

Let us know when you've actually got some. But again, K-12 students are not in a position to evaluate them, regardless.

[Larry Fafarman]

Chris W. said,
--"There hasn't been that much actual discussion from your side, just insistent repetition of the same talking point essentially unmodified. "--

I am forced to repeat myself because my points go unanswered. I am going to repeat myself again: In co-evolution of total co-dependence, unlike evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., water, land, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent.

Anyway, this particular criticism of evolution is not the big issue here -- the big issue is the dogmatic teaching of Darwinism.

--"Students (especially in the elementary and middle school grades) don't have that knowledge and experience and are much more susceptible to creationist propaganda and stupid but plausible-sounding "criticisms" "--

The details of Darwinism are taught mainly in high school, not in elementary and middle school. And the students are as susceptible to Darwinist propaganda as they are to creationist propaganda.

[Larry Fafarman]

--"You haven't demonstrated any "weaknesses" yet. When do you plan to start? "--

Things must be discussed to determine whether or not they are weaknesses, bozo. And even if there are no known weaknesses now, weaknesses might be discovered in the future. And discussing apparent weaknesses of evolution helps to develop students' critical thinking skills.

--"No, what Jones banned was the attempt to teach "intelligent design" (a religiously-motivated concept) as if it were science. "--

Judge Jones is a stupid idiot who showed extreme prejudice against the Dover defendants -- regardless of whether or not Intelligent Design is a religious concept -- by saying in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. He said,

". . . .this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state.
-- from http://www.dickinson.edu/commencement/2006/address.html

Furthermore, the ID-as-science section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion was ghostwritten by the ACLU.

--"Jones was aware of the fact that the attempt to *require* teachers to *denigrate* or *disparage* evolution was religiously motivated. "--

Motivation is a factor in the Lemon test but not in the endorsement test, and the Lemon test has fallen into disfavor. I don't know why judges continue to use the Lemon test.

--"No, "Darwinists" believe in teaching the best available science, as supported by the best available evidence. "--

There is nothing wrong with teaching the "second-best" available science -- and there is nothing wrong with teaching scientific criticisms of the "best available science."

[Chris W]

Larry:

There hasn't been that much actual discussion from your side, just insistent repetition of the same talking point essentially unmodified. I happen to know what I'm talking about, so I can explain why your example is essentially meaningless. Students (especially in the elementary and middle school grades) don't have that knowledge and experience and are much more susceptible to creationist propaganda and stupid but plausible-sounding "criticisms" (like your co-evolution mantra) than college students.

Larry Fafarman wrote: "Anyway, do you see how discussing apparent scientific weaknesses of evolution..."

You haven't demonstrated any "weaknesses" yet. When do you plan to start?

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "Critical thinking about evolution in public schools was banned by Judge Jones"

No, what Jones banned was the attempt to teach "intelligent design" (a religiously-motivated concept) as if it were science.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "...who said, inter alia, 'we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants . . . from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution . . .'"

Yes, the key words being "require", "denigrate", and "disparage". Jones was aware of the fact that the attempt to *require* teachers to *denigrate* or *disparage* evolution was religiously motivated. It was not motivated by any serious interest in teaching science.

***

Larry Fafarman wrote: "Darwinists believe in teaching evolution by spoonfeeding and brainwashing."

No, "Darwinists" believe in teaching the best available science, as supported by the best available evidence. That means teaching the fact of evolution and the theory that explains it. No "spoonfeeding" nor "brainwashing" is needed to do so.

[Larry Fafarman]

Chris W said,
--"Try it from another angle - try assuming that the bright colors and the digestive systems (and the deep pollen containers, for that matter) weren't always there in final form but developed from other traits."--

Even when a new co-dependent trait is developed from some other trait, this development may be fatal or harmful in the local absence of the corresponding new trait in the other organism, and in such absence provides no advantage in natural selection even when not fatal or harmful. This is true for gradual changes as well as for big, abrupt changes.

Anyway, do you see how discussing apparent scientific weaknesses of evolution can at least help develop students' critical thinking skills? Critical thinking about evolution in public schools was banned by Judge Jones, who said, inter alia, "we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants . . . from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution . . ." Darwinists believe in teaching evolution by spoonfeeding and brainwashing.

[Chris W]

Larry:

Your choice of conditional isn't the problem; it's trying to reason from that conditional to the necessary.

Drew is correct when he said that "bees have digestive tracts specially designed for digesting nectar" doesn't mean they always did, but there is a further correction to be made that speaks to your misconceptions about co-evolution.

Your counter-example sounds like you assume that the bee has always had a nectar-specific digestive system and the flowers have always been brightly colored and full of nectar, and that it was just a matter of finding each other and developing an interdependence. Try it from another angle - try assuming that the bright colors and the digestive systems (and the deep pollen containers, for that matter) weren't always there in final form but developed from other traits.

You're a retired engineer (according to your profile), so you might benefit from reading these:

http://www.bioinfo.de/isb/2007/07/0042/
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/731515.html

Computer simulations are a valuable tool for everything from manufacturing to bridge design and failure analysis so their validity in testing evolutionary mechanisms isn't an issue. The software is normally public as well, so you can grab it and do your own testing and playing.

[Drew Smith]

I wrote: "Which ignores the idea that flowering plants could originally use something *other* than bees to be pollinated (such as beetles), and/or that bees could originally use a food source *other* than flowering plants (such as other insects)."

Larry Fafarman responded: "Some pollen is carried by wind or water, but in 'buzz pollination' the pollen adheres so strongly to the plant that the vibration of insects' wings is needed to dislodge it."

And beetles have wings.

***

Larry Farfarman also wrote: "Also, bees have digestive tracts that are specially designed for digesting nectar."

Which doesn't tell us that they always did.

[Larry Fafarman]

Drew Smith says,
--"Which ignores the idea that flowering plants could originally use something *other* than bees to be pollinated (such as beetles), and/or that bees could originally use a food source *other* than flowering plants (such as other insects)."--

Some pollen is carried by wind or water, but in "buzz pollination" the pollen adheres so strongly to the plant that the vibration of insects' wings is needed to dislodge it. Also, bees have digestive tracts that are specially designed for digesting nectar.

Chris W. said,
--"That's the same bogus wannabe counter-example you use again and again."--

I have other counter-examples, but I think that my counter-example concerning the co-evolution of total co-dependence is my best one, so why shouldn't I use it again and again? My co-evolution counter-example is so effective that it is often censored on pro-Darwinist blogs. Also, I never see this counter-example discussed except when I raise it.

--"And you aren't paying attention to the paragraph you're copying and pasting, either, since it's chock full of "may be" conditionals."--

I use "may be" because the statement does not apply in every case. Maybe I should use "often" or "sometimes" instead.

[Chris W]

Nick:

Start throwing around terms like "leftist public schools and universities" and you make yourself sound really foolish.

FYI, I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry and a graduate degree in experimental psychology (from a real university). Along the way I have accumulated considerable experience doing computer simulations (including more than a bit of work with neural networks and genetic algorithms). I know how actual science is done, so when I criticize creationist "arguments" as flimsy and insubstantial, I know maybe a little more about why they're bogus than you do.

I have a collection of creationist books ranging from "The Genesis Flood" to "The Creation Hypothesis", and I have read them all. I recently bought "Debating Design", and looked at the creationist and evolutionist articles in it. The creationist articles are generally of much lower quality than the evolutionist ones; the most charitable spin you can put on it is that the creationists are doing the best they can with the nothing they have to work with.

As for Rampant Films, if you're depending on a movie put together by Nixon's old speech-writer to save creationism's bacon then you're really backing the wrong horse. It isn't really new information; it's a rehash, and it will be greeted with the laughter and yawns it will deserve.

As to your last question, the answer is more lengthy than a simple "yes" or "no". I can't answer for anyone who would stifle an actual debate; but the proper forum for that debate is in the academic literature, subject to peer review and the only valid way that a scientific theory wins legitimacy. This business of trying to force the issue through legal and political means instead of ID or creationism earning its wings by actually explaining more things better than evolution can smacks of people who know, deep down, that they're peddling nonsense and are trying to change the rules so they have a chance.

[Nick]

Chris,

You always seem to be so sure that Darwinism is flawless -- and I wonder if you believe this because of your own scientific understandings, or if you've been indoctrinated by Darwinian spin misters bent on controlling the scientific community and society by inculcating our young through the leftist public schools and universities. Your disdain for so-called creationist and anyone God-fearing is quite telling. If you were more open to hearing the other side with more than an absolute dismissal as dribble by anyone other than myself, I would hold your argument in higher esteem and sincerity as your own thoughts and convictions. You've always given me a fair shake and I've tried to reciprocate. My question to you is; are you sure there are not those that would bar information to the contrary about Darwinism and stifle testimony and scientific evidence by prominent scientists?

This debate is far from over and a lot of information is about to come forth. http://www.rampantfilms.com/rampantfilms.swf

[Chris W]

Larry, you're starting to sound like a Johnny One-Note. That's the same bogus wannabe counter-example you use again and again. And you aren't paying attention to the paragraph you're copying and pasting, either, since it's chock full of "may be" conditionals. Those are the weasel words that creationists use when they want to make it seem like they're poking holes in evolutionary explanations but don't want to be accountable when their arguments turn out to be full of bovine fecal matter.

[Drew Smith]

Fafarman writes: "Consider, for example, the co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants. In such co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g, , water, land, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent locally."

Which ignores the idea that flowering plants could originally use something *other* than bees to be pollinated (such as beetles), and/or that bees could originally use a food source *other* than flowering plants (such as other insects).

[Larry Fafarman]

--"Maybe, since you're retired, you went to high school fifty years ago and biology has been unified under evolution since then."--

I used to accept Darwinism but in the last three years I have become very skeptical. Consider, for example, the co-evolution of total co-dependence of two different organisms, e.g., bees and flowering plants. In such co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g, , water, land, and air, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent locally.

[Chris W]

Larry, just because you don't remember studying Darwinism in high school biology doesn't mean that it isn't the fundamental concept underlying biology. Maybe you forgot. Maybe your teacher wasn't up to scratch. Maybe, since you're retired, you went to high school fifty years ago and biology has been unified under evolution since then.

[Drew Smith]

Fafarman wrote: "Regardless of whether Darwinism is wholly or partly true, telling students that it is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology is telling them a Big Lie."

Because...?

[Larry Fafarman]

Sometimes I wonder if you journalists even bother to read responses to your articles, because you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Consider the The Fordham Foundation or Institute (no connection to Fordham Univ.), for example. The chief author of the Fordham report on state science standards, Paul R. Gross, is hardly unbiased about Darwinism, because he is a co-author -- along with Barbara Forrest -- of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design," a book which claims that critics of Darwinism are a bunch of fundies who are conspiring to turn the USA into a theocracy. Also, even though evolution counts for only 3 points out of the 69 points in the Fordham rating system, Gross threatened to change Ohio's overall science grade from a B to an F just because the Ohio evolution lesson plan included scientific weaknesses of evolution. Gross's letter to the Ohio board of education is near the bottom of the following webpage:
http://www.ohioscience.org/

I don't remember even studying Darwinism in high school biology at all. Regardless of whether Darwinism is wholly or partly true, telling students that it is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology is telling them a Big Lie.

[me]

A lowly teacher's thoughts on the realities of the classroom:

I will have to teach the standard as the DOE says to do so...First I will define "Scientific Theory" and let the language arts teacher define "theory" in generic terms.

My scientific dictionary and hers are quite different of course. Then I will explain, and ask the students to "understand evolution" not whether they should or should not believe it.

If students go so far as to ask me what I personally believe, which they always tend to do, I will defer on the grounds that I don't want to have my
pants sued by their parents for expressing an opinion....even though
Donna Callaway expressed hers on a taxpayer's dime, I will not be able to be given equal opportunity. Then I will be made a scapegoat and have all the litigation and charges plastered on my certification on the DOE's web site so that I can't get rehired anywhere.

Let's see, on second thought, that chapter is at the end of the textbook and I may not even be able to get to it by year's end because it is takes more than 180 days to teach all the standards any way, and it may not be worth the risk of losing my job and the income that my own offspring depend on for support for food and shelter.

For me that decision is a no brainer.
Joe Q. Public, this is the reality of what will occur in the classroom, throughout the state. I would rather see the issue taken to court, rather than my own self.

[Holden McGroin]

Join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Be touched by his noodly appendage!

Flying Spaghetti Monster be praised!

As one who totally recognizes that the theory of evolution is so well established that it probably should be called the "biological law of evolution," I want to acknowledge that, at today's meeting, two of the most well-spoken supporters of the standards as originally written were a baptist pastor and a presbyterian minister. They spoke eloquently of the need for real science in our classrooms and the real need to keep science teachers safe from no-win religious debates. I am heartened that there are very religious persons around, like these two, whose faith is not threatened by science, the ultimate search for truth in the natural world.

LKA, You be d idiot, me thinks.

[Chris W]

Pantheist:

Simple. Work to unseat creationism supporters. Start telling creationist jokes and make people laugh at them like they deserve.

[Pantheist]

It seems like the majority of the posters (myself included) applaud the school boards decsion and are in favor of teaching evolution in our schools. Yet the vote was way too close for comfort. I admit that I failed to vocalize my support at the public meetings as I was so naive to believe that it would be easily defeated.

We now know otherwise and I would hate for the tide to turn the other way again. Especially since the poll taken recently indicated an overwhelming support of creationism.

In light of the fact that both sides may contest the school boards decision, does anyone of a like mind know the best way to make certain that our collective voices are known to those that matter in our legislature and school board?

[Rikki]

I believe that gravity is a law. I do not know the level of experimentation that must be accomplished to graduate from a theory to a law.
I do know that a scientific theory is not a hypothesis. We should not teach hypotheses as fact. Can you imagine how heavy a science textbook would be if we filled it with a bunch of hypotheses? There are hundreds of creation stories alone that would need to be included!
ID is a hypothesis. It should not be in a textbook. Leave science to scientists, not popular opinion.

Flori-duh... Flori---duh... FLORI-DUH!!!!!!!!

[Nick]

Hmm OK,

I explained my use of Behe. That's all I'm hearing. If all I hear is crying and name calling then I have every right to say it. Thus far, the only arguments I can say that had any substance, were from Chris W, Dennis, and Adam.