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

[Hmm OK]

Wait....Nick is not for ID, not against the banning of teaching evolution, but uses an ID proponent to back him claims of...what exactly?

And talks about name calling, but says:

"Do I hear crying? There's no crying in science. You're all supposed to be so smart, and so enlightened - all I hear is name calling and crying. Your arguments are so predictable, it's always the same thing. Well, maybe you're not so smart after all. ..."

Circles, circles....

[Nick]

Steve, you wrote:
Evolutionary theory is real, it's a fact, and today's students need to understand it if they want to advance into modern science and medical fields, and compete against other modern nations that don't have do bother with this silly fight.

Question: When did I advocate baning teaching evolution in school?

[Dave]

All the talk on this blog that gravity is a fact defies hundreds of years of teaching by the Catholic Church. I want the theory of 'Intelligent Falling' taught alongside gravity in physics classes.

[random....]

God's place in society is up to the individual. God has no place in public schools and certainly not in science. This is not about anything more than that. Not here. Anything more is another discussion which most here are not partaking.

The hate goes BOTH ways. Any denial otherwise is ignorant.

Atheism is a right. As is any other belief system, or lack thereof. Science has nothing to do with that.

The Christian aspect comes into is because of ID/Creationism.

As this is a public bog, people can argue whichever point that they want to.

I'm pretty sure that MarkMarsh was being sarcastic.

Gravity...Where's that argument? It's only a theory.

[Steve]

"If you don't understand the connection between the progressive secular left, the ACLU, and the militant atheists' (to name a few) in this country then I'm sorry for you. I know there are those of you, unsuspecting types, thinking this is all about science, but it's not. It's about a belief system called atheism, the eradication of God in our society and a belief in a God who created us in His likeness and image. Just listen to some of these posts, they're positively hateful... fairy tails? That's not only hateful, it's anti-American. And Dave is the most hateful of the bunch."

That's all well and good. The culture wars will continue, whatever.

But none of that changes the fact that science doesn't care about any of that. Darwin wasn't worried about being a lefty--he was a man trying to understand the world around him.

Evolutionary theory is real, it's a fact, and today's students need to understand it if they want to advance into modern science and medical fields, and compete against other modern nations that don't have do bother with this silly fight.

Science only becomes politics when other people use it for that purpose.

Evolution is not left-wing or right-wing--it just is.

If you decide to suppress knowledge or try to conflate religious beliefs to compete with that knowledge, you are entering very dangerous and disturbing terrority.

[Nick]

Feel superior now LKA?

[LKA]

To MarkMarsh, who wrote - "To much knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Clearly you neither understand nor appreciate the value of an education. You must agree to this statement so much, in fact, that you are unable to write a proper sentence using the word "to" (which should be "too" and would imply "an abundance" of knowledge). Without knowledge, nothing in our world would be as it is today. Without teaching and PROPERLY educating our younger generations, the days of tomorrow will be completely void of any intellectual light.

I will agree with your statement by saying that "too much knowledge is a dangerous thing" for people who are unable to comprehend science and knowledge. As I am unable to close without sounding completely cliché, ignorance is more commonly known as taking the easy way out.

[Drew Smith]

Nick wrote: "If I'm hearing everyone correctly, it is a theory."

Theories are designed to explain facts.

When science teachers implement the new standards, and teach "the theory of evolution", exactly what fact is it that you think they're going to say that "the theory of evolution" explains? Here's a hint: The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity. Guess what the theory of evolution explains?

[Nick]

Dan,

If you don't understand the connection between the progressive secular left, the ACLU, and the militant atheists' (to name a few) in this country then I'm sorry for you. I know there are those of you, unsuspecting types, thinking this is all about science, but it's not. It's about a belief system called atheism, the eradication of God in our society and a belief in a God who created us in His likeness and image. Just listen to some of these posts, they're positively hateful... fairy tails? That's not only hateful, it's anti-American. And Dave is the most hateful of the bunch.

I have no qualms with evolution, I'm Roman Catholic. I fail to see where one Christian wrote that evolution should not be taught, yet you accuse us of wanting to ban it. Honestly, where do you come up with this? You're arguing points that nobody raised. And NO, Pope John Paul the GREAT was NOT a secular leftist!

[Steve]

"How does siting the secular left discredit me? There is such a thing as the secular left you know, it's not a derogatory term. If your leanings are from the left and you do not believe in God, you're a secular lefty. Where's the problem?"

What the heck does a person's politics and their belief or non-belief in God have to do with science and evolution?

[Roger]

Thank God evolution can be taught!

[Nick]

Not William,
How does siting the secular left discredit me? There is such a thing as the secular left you know, it's not a derogatory term. If your leanings are from the left and you do not believe in God, you're a secular lefty. Where's the problem?

[Rikki]

I believe that the intelligent design (ID) supporters are confusing hypothesis with scientific theory. A hypothesis is a question or an idea that is not yet proven. Before the scientific community defines anything as a theory, it must be proven in the lab and/or with any other empirical evidence over and over again. Scientists do not just label ideas as theories without serious experimentation. To say that evolution is "just a theory," suggests that no scientific experimentation or study was involved in its definition. This would suggest wrong.
Therefore, until ID graduates from the hypothesis stage, it should not be in science textbooks.

[Phillip]

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

Let's be clear, evolution is not something that you believe in. People believe in things like Santa Clause, leprechauns, and Jesus. Evolution is something that you either understand or don't understand. Despite the watering down of content, I'm glad to see that the school board wants their students to understand it, as well.

[mike]

alas Steve, you are right. They will be back.

[Steve]

The American Taliban has been defeated for another day.

But they will be back.

How is the "secular lefts'" desire more dubious than the "religious rights'"?

[Dan.]

Nick, what do you mean by political, cultural, and social ramifications?

Evolution is real. It's indisputable. Not one serious modern biologist on Planet Earth argues this. It is a foundation of modern biological knowledge. If it is not real, there is no such thing as modern medicine or genetics.

Are you saying you're worried about the social ramifications of people understanding the real world?

What sort of scary thinking is that?

You see a lot of comments directed towards Christians because the whole other creation theory argument is nonsense. It is simply a way for them to try and force their religion into schools. People take offense to crap arguments and being force fed something that is not legally allowed in schools.

[Not William]

"secular lefts"

Nick has now discredited himself.

Nicely done, non-bias and reasonable citizen.

[Dan.]

Pope John Paul II believed in evolution.

Was he a secular leftist too?

[Dave]

No, Gordo, I deride Christians because they ignore facts and believe in fairy tales. I only now do it publicly because they've had the audacity to try and foist their crap on the rest of us. If they didn't do that, I'd be happy to leave them alone.

[Dan.]

Gordo, there are a lot of wonderful people out there who are dumber than rocks.

That doesn't change the facts of the real world.

[Chris W]

Nick:

Maybe so, because philosophical arguments are completely theoretical and insulated from the ravages of facts. ;-)

I agree with what happened on the surface; Darwin will still be taught, and evolution was given a primacy it didn't have before.

Two of the "no" votes were from doctors/scientists who didn't think the wimpy compromise went far enough, and the other was from a woman who kept saying she wanted God involved. The rest of them weren't expecting the buzzsaw they got and just wanted something to make the controversy go away.

What the "a scientific theory" does is leave the door open for the Discovery Institute and its little elves to keep trying to get scientific credentials for "intelligent design" and weasel it into Florida science classes. It would have been better, and more final, for them to have left the standards the way they were and voted them in. That would have shut down, to a large degree, the creationist enterprise in Florida.

[Gordo]

Nothing to do with football, with the type of people they are. You make the most derogatory comments about Christians as a whole because they don't share your beliefs.

[Dave (#4)]

Gordo, hey - if you're citing professional athletes, it's game over. And you lost.

[Nick]

Adam, I used Behe as an illustration of an argument against Darwin's theory. And not because of my opposition to Darwin's theory, in fact, I'm not opposed to it at all. I was oppose to removing the label "theory," the very ruling today. I could care less about Behe and his refutation of Darwin. I'm not even a proponent of ID. I'm more concerned with the political, cultural and social ramifications of this case.

I'm more dubious of the secular lefts' desire to oppose the "G" word than I am of the religious rights' desire to oppose Darwin -- not that the right necessarily does.

Let's look at what happened here today. As far as I can see nothing really changed, Darwin is still going to be taught in science class; creationism is not (and rightfully so) - the only thing different is what? We're calling it a theory? If I'm hearing everyone correctly, it is a theory. Oh I know, if you believe in God you don't know the meaning of theory - but if you're a straight A science student, then you know what it means, exactly. I get all that. So what's the problem? It sounds as though those opposing today's vote is arguing over semantics.

[Dave]

" Any Gator fans posting? I believe Tebow is a regenerated Christian who believes in creation. I guess he is lumped in with all the idiots who don't believe in evolution. How about Tony Dungy? "

You think football players are somehow experts in biology now?

Explains a lot about creationists, if that is where you get your science education from.

[Not William]

I for one would like to welcome Florida to the 20th century. Just one more to go.

You are now .001% less crazy...but still BATSHIAT by all reasonable standards.

[Dave (another one)]

"MRSA a once easily defeated pathogen has evolved to resist antibiotics. In our lifetime."

Mike, I think you may have lost your intended audience:

There's this noo bug, see. Real bad. Didn't used to be, but it CHANGED. Changed real fast. And now it'll eat your face and fancy medicine's no good. They say it done evolved.

Hope that helps.

[Gordo]

Wow, such hatred. Any Gator fans posting? I believe Tebow is a regenerated Christian who believes in creation. I guess he is lumped in with all the idiots who don't believe in evolution. How about Tony Dungy? Another one of those vile stupid Christians so many of you are so ready to rip apart.

[Dave]

How do creationists explain the field of genetics?

It supports evolutionary theory 100%, and no one even discovered DNA until Darwin had been dead for half a century.

Are geneticists all atheists, doing work that isn't real?

Wow, creationists are dumb people.

[mike]

OK, you want to witness evolution. See MRSA a once easily defeated pathogen has evolved to resist antibiotics. In our lifetime.

[Dave]

The one undeniable fact about this topic:

Creationists are ALL people who do not understand basic biology.

There is NO controversy among biologists that evolution is a fact.

None.

If you don't believe in evolution, I guess you don't believe in geology (which is based on the fact the Earth is millions of years old), chemistry, modern medicine, or anything.

Why are you using a computer? Don't you know it took science to invent that?

Creationists, every single one of them, are ignorant or liars.

Every single one of them.

Sad people, afraid to learn modern knowledge.

But I notice creationists never hesitate to use modern medicine or modern technology when it's convenient for them.

They aren't just ignorant liars, they are also hypocrites. If they really didn't believe in science, they should live like the Amish. At least the Amish practice what they preach. Creationists just pick and choose the parts of science they like, and refuse to believe the rest.

They are not smart people, and should be kept far away from educating our children.

[Dave]

Sure, SHC is REAL, man. That's why I always carry a Bible in EACH HAND.

On to more important things... Anybody believe in Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC)?

[Dave]

Yes, I was there when "god" created Adam, and let me tell you it was NOTHING like the book. God was late on the set from partying the night before. His first five creative attempts yielded nothing but politicians and lawyers. Then there were the cost overruns, protests from the apple industry, and we ran out of light 'coz no-one could figure out how long a day was supposed to be. In the end, God was so pissed he wouldn't even give the poor creature clothes. Then he stormed off to get fast-food and hasn't been seen since. At least I think it was fast-food - he was muttering something about spare ribs.

Whoa anon at 4:21pm - were you there to see "god" create Adam??? HUH??? Was anyone? Didn't think so (am I still allowed to think?) That is the utmost in hypocrisy - You Bible thumpers expect everyone to take your word that the earth and man were created as the Bible tells you - without any witnesses or hard evidence for proof. And then you'll dismiss Evolution because you say no one was there to witness evolution in process...You're arguments are flawed.

[DM]

As if this weren't bad enough, high schools in Hillsborough will be watering down their English classes, too... who needs to read entire books or take tests when kids can use workbooks and just read small pieces? Education in this state has become an absolute joke and no one is stepping up to end the insanity. First FCAT owns the kids then College Board and now even science and history are going fast. Next, I'm sure we'll all decide math is useless, too. Brilliant.

[Adam]

Nick, it is refreshing to see someone willing to look at evidence. Do you realize that Behe accepts common origin? That means he believes that we all share a common ancestor. By we I mean everything living thing on earth and the ancestor is a single celled organism. If you want to use his arguments you should probably use all of them.

[Nick]

Thank you Chris and Dennis for giving me something more than name-calling and the like. I asked for references, and references I got. Mostly from Talkorigins.org, but I shall look them all over.

Perhaps I should have went with the philosophical argument, hey Chris?

[εξέλιξη]

My theroy is, I, (not we) came to be from a lightening strike thrown down by Zeus.

[Dennis]

Anonymous:

By your requirements, then geology and astronomy are not sciences either. The study of mountain formations would not be science, as they are millions of years old, and we weren't there to see them form. Therefore even though we understand the process of subduction, even though we understand the properties and characteristics of the rocks, even though the mountain itself has physical evidence of how it arose, you wouldn't call that science.

What does being an atheist have to do with science?

The same thing God does:

Nothing.

[Father Ray]

hey Julie, you must be an atheist.

"Check the definition of THEORY."

As soon as you learn what it means in science.

"It can't be tested, and you know it."

It can't, eh? Could you back that up with something else? Some facts perhaps?

"No one was here to observe it, we can not observe it now, so to take evolution as fact and that the entire universe came about from nothing, takes more faith than belief in an almighty Creator."

We can't observe it now? Are you for real?

"That's called intellegent design."

And that's based upon....the tests and observation you claim evolution doesn't have? Please explain. (I am going to assume the spelling there was a typo.)

"Let the people's opinion RULE!"

Oh yes, let the opinion of uneducated people rule over that of those who have studied the topic. Where am I?

[anonymous]

Hey Simba, yeah I know the definition of theory, here it is from American Standard:"NOUN:
pl. the?o?ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
You can not repeatedly test evolution, and especially since no one was here to observe it, and we can't test it to be certain, now you jump straight to evolution as FACT??
Sounds like you are trying to indoctrinate our kids to me.

[Dennis]

This link has many other good links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Here's an interesting article co-written by a science philosophy professor and a biologist attacking Behe's ideas from both perspectives:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/POS6-99ShenksJoplin.html

The bottom line is that Behe's entire "irreducible complexity" argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

[Dennis]

This link has many other good links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Here's an interesting article co-written by a science philosophy professor and a biologist attacking Behe's ideas from both perspectives:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/POS6-99ShenksJoplin.html

The bottom line is that Behe's entire "irreducible complexity" argument is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

[Bill]

Nick, for somebody who has been "reading a lot about this", you sure seem to be getting your data from one source. For blood clotting, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html

or just google "blood clotting irreducible" for lots of information.