Make that two for the science standards

A second Board of Education member has come out in favor of the state's proposed new science standards, adding to the intrigue two weeks before the BOE vote on Feb. 19. "I'm in support of the standards in the way they have been proposed," Akshay Desai of St. Petersburg told The Gradebook. "I do support evolution. There's not a question about that at all."

The current tally for the 7-member board now stands at two in favor, two appearing to lean against and three either undecided or unwilling to say.

In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times in December, Desai, a medical doctor and businessman who was appointed by Gov. Charlie Crist, would not close the door on inclusion of alternative theories in the standards (see story here). But in an interview with the Gradebook yesterday, he did shut the door, saying such theories did not have a place in the science curriculum. "Maybe in some other classes," he said.

Asked for a prediction on the vote, Desai said he expected his fellow board members to approve the standards, given that they are "responsible citizens and knowing their desire to give our students a world-class education."

Desai joins BOE member Roberto Martinez of Miami in supporting the standards, which describe evolution as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence."

Board member Donna Callaway said two months ago she was against the proposed standards, but she told The Gradebook yesterday that she could not say whether her position is the same until she reads the final draft, which was released Friday. Board member Linda Taylor of Fort Myers has not said how she will vote, but she has been sympathetic to arguments that call for inclusion of alternative theories (see Gradebook post here).

As for the rest of the board: Chairman T. Willard Fair of Miami says he won't disclose his position until the meeting. Phoebe Raulerson of Okeechobee says she is undecided. And The Gradebook has been unable to reach Kathleen Shanahan of Tampa.

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[CP]

Evolution is a proven scientific theory with lots of fossil evidence to back it up. Intelligent Design is a fairy tale that was made with no evidence to support it. Leave ID out of the classroom and keep it in church where it belongs.

[Kay]

C'Mon CP, a "theory" is not "proven". Your statement makes no sense. I think that is the problem that some of us have with evolution in the classroom. It must be taught as a theory and no more.

[Patrick]

Kay, it is taught as a theory. It's just that you Creationists have no clue what you're talking about that muddies the conversation. Creationism is not a theory and cannot be taught as such.

[CP]

Kay,
In science, you start with a hypothesis and then you form a theory. The theory is then proven with scientific evidence and or experimentation. In time, if the theory holds it can become law. So a theory can be proven, my statement makes perfect sense. ID is not even a theory, it is a fairy tale.

[Jonus]

Can't wait until they start teaching snake handling and talking in tongues in my kid's science class.

[pastafarian]

Don't forget to teach ALL the alternative theories! Norse Creation Myth and Flying Spaghetti Monster are just as valid as "I dunno! Looks complicated! Must have been God!"

[who cares]

Evolution and Intelligent Design are both theories. The difference between the two is that their is a great deal of scientifically tested and vetted evidence to support the former and very little credible to support the latter. If you are going to teach the two theories as co-equals you might as well go ahead and tell kids the truth that purple unicorns on mars pooped out life on earth 300 years ago and convinced the first humans that there was life on earth prior.

[Greg]

Any school board member who wants to teach religious philosphy as science should be impeached or at the least voted off the school board so that they can focus on their career as a minister. They have absolutely no place on an education board.

[Dee]

Well, it did not take long for the intolerant anti-Christian crowd to shower us with their childish comments.

It is a sad day when there cannot be a reasonable conversation regarding education without the uncalled for bigotry.

Why not teach evolution in science class and creationism in comparative religion? We need to educate our children about religion and the role it plays in the culture in other parts of the world as well as about the role it plays in our own.

Are we truly interested in educating our children or just shoving an anti-Christian version of evolution down their throat?

[Dennis]

Dee: No one is complaining about teaching creationism in a comparative religion class. This is about SCIENCE class and the state SCIENCE standards.

Religion, including creationism and ID, simply have no place whatsoever in science class. Additionally, if someone's beliefs are contrary to evolution, that is irrelevant as well. Evolution is THE scientific theory of the diversification of life. It is backed by all of the available science. That someone doesn't like what it might or might not imply as far as their belief system doesn't matter. No more so than if someone's religion believed that the moon was made of cheese and the sun revolved around the earth, and demanded that we not teach the real science because it would undermine their religious views.

[sane]

Dee

Why do you say evolution is "anti-Christian"? Sure, it doesn't fit the current Christian beliefs, but if you go back a few years, the Christians were condemning people who said the earth was NOT the center of the universe too.

Things change.

[Buck Joe Bob]

Perhaps we could reserve any sort of theory of how the world came to be for the college level, and spend more time in our public schools teaching more important things, like making sure they remember to follow every order up with "would you like fries with that", and making sure the safety is properly secured on their handgun before entering school grounds.

[Anna]

Gravity is also a 'theory'...people don't seem to argue with that though...why is evolution any different?

[Tri]

No matter how many ways you want to slice it and dice it, creationism is not science – its religion. In a land where you have freedom of religion, you may go to the place of worship of your choice. Teaching religion is the parent’s responsibility, not the state. If we must teach creationism or intelligent design (or whatever you choose to call it) in school, then it should be taught as a humanities class that will help explain the influences religion has had on man and how it has affected human history. Not as a science class. Nothing scientific about it.

BTW, the evidence of evolution and natural selection is overwhelming if one takes the time to look. Don’t believe it? Just go to the Galapagos Islands and see evolution taking place before your very eyes. Still don’t believe it? Then go to the Grand Canyon where you will find a fossilized record of evolution. Evolution is not something that once happened hundreds or thousands of years ago, but is a continuing process that has and is shaping our world and yes the Universe.

One more thing, the Earth is more than 10,000 years old and man did not roam with the dinosaurs as the Baptist would want you to believe. Good grief, what century do we live in?

[Creationism Forever]

Creationism is here to stay!!! There are lesson plans for it!!!

http://es-pressco.com/blog/?p=295

Science is for stupids and devils!!

[Buck Joe Bob]

So, because there are lesson plans for it, that makes creationism factual? Why can't these overzealous religious lunatics worship on their own time? Why do they feel the need to cram their BELIEF down everyone else's throat?

[Mr. S]

Religion makes people different from one another with no solid basis. It creates more questions than answers and, subsequently, many problems. It's insane to attribute everything to something that is impossible to prove. There is zero evidence supporting religion. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. We have domestic civilizations that settled the Potomac 10,000 years ago, which is 4,000 years prior to the supposed beginning of the world. This is not up for debate. I certainly hope you religious fanatics aren't leading your children into adulthood expecting the Easter Bunny's continued visits.

[Dan]

Why is evolution anti-Christian? What does Christianity have to do with anything? There are other religions out there, what about their theories of creation? What makes Christianity so correct? If you teach Christian creation theories even in a comparitive religion class, you must teach other religion theories as well. There is absolutly no scientific evidence for creationism, regardless of them bringing up thermodynamics(must be a closed system for that theory) or the development of eyes(another crackpot explaination that doesn't hold water when REAL science is applied) Next thing they will suggest is that dinosaurs and men lived together.

[Frank]

Dr. Desai, of St. Petersburg, at last someone who knows how to think! Three cheers for the good Doctor!

[Mike]

Is KAY some kind of moron or what? Dear: a "theory" is proven. A hypothesis is not. Evolution is PROVEN science, religious superstition is NOT. Teach proven science in our classrooms and please keep the superstition to your ouiji boards and churches. You are a symptom of our failing educational standards in this country. So many dumb people signals the beginning of the end of our great civilization.

[James Falvo]

Please, folks, a bit of civility!

I am a molecular biologist at Harvard Med School, and I have published in the field of evolutionary biology. A few things need to be cleared up.

First, a theory is a unifying explanation for observations, measurements, and natural laws, which has been heavily tested through research until it becomes accepted in the scientific community. Plate tectonics. Gravity. Atomic theory. Evolution. Evolution is descent with modification from a common ancestor; we see this process happening today. Like any theory, it is open to improvement and modification - genetics alone has contributed a vast amount of new information in support of evolution that was not available in Darwin's time. So it unites factual observations; it is an accepted explanation, it has not been disproved (we scientists don't think in terms of final proof because everything is open to modification), and above all, it is not a "guess."

Second, accepting evolution does not mean rejecting religion. Far from it: the majority of Catholics and mainstream Protestant faiths accept scientific theories, including evolution. Speaking as a person of faith and an advisor for the Clergy Letter Project, it is highly insulting when people say evolutionists are anti-religion AND when people bash religion. Please, people, don't do it!

Third, intelligent design and creationism are NOT scientific theories. There is not a single peer-reviewed research paper in these fields - go to the National Library of Medicine's public database (17 million+ citations). There are none. These ideas are advanced by political organizations like the far right-wing Discovery Institute - it is comletely inaccurate to call them theories, they are untested and inappropriate to teach to students. Keep in mind that a Republican and Bush appointee, Judge John Johns, completely destroyed intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005.

[James Falvo]

Oops...make that Judge John E. Jones III. He's a hero of mine, I don't want to misspell his name!

Way to go Falvo! Aside from you excellent explanation, why does everybody always overlook Kitzmiller?

[Drew Smith]

First, scientific theories are never "proven". Science differs from mathematics and logic. One may indeed *prove* something in mathematics or in logic. But scientific positions are *always* capable of being disproven if new evidence comes to light that cannot be explained by the existing theory. When you prove something in math, you can't *ever* disprove it (unless a human error was made during the original proof).

At this point in time, the theory of evolution by natural selection (with many modern additions) is the best available explanation that covers what we observe. We observe evolution. Observations include the fossil record and the DNA evidence.

The *fact* of evolution (that modern and extinct living things share a common ancestor) is explained by the theory of evolution. So adding "theory" to the science standards would overlook the fact that students must not only be taught the theories that explain the facts, but they must also be taught the facts.

Unfortunately, too many individuals do not understand what the word "theory" means in science. It does not mean "unproven fact" or "imperfect fact" or "best guess".

Theories do not somehow become facts or laws. Theories *explain* facts. Laws, which are usually mathematical models (formulas) of what we observe, are something else entirely.

[Julie]

The evangelicals are on the run and scared...8 years of our born again President driving our nation into the ditch have Americans fed up...so the bible beaters are trying to get one more victory at the expense of Florida's intellectual future...Take a lesson from Tom Gallagher's defeat against Crist, and McCain's victory march through the Republican primary, and practice your delusions, er, religions in your churches, not in our public schools! You're DONE...