Rubio: Evolution battle 'will go on'

So maybe it's not over. House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-Miami, who is often described as a likely future governor, told the Florida Baptist Witness in this story yesterday that the evolution battle "will go on for quite some time" and that the House "may have sufficient votes" to act on an academic freedom proposal being pushed by religious conservatives.

Here is an excerpt from the Witness, which has scored a couple of scoops in covering the evolution story: "The 'crux' of the disagreement, according to Rubio, is 'whether what a parent teachers their children at home should be mocked and derided  and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?' "

Rubio's comments follow Tuesday's vote by the Board of Education to adopt new science standards that embrace evolution, though with compromise language that describes evolution as a "scientific theory." In this letter sent to the board that day – apparently before the vote - Rubio and four other lawmakers indicated they were happy with that change.

Board members discussed the academic freedom proposal but did not take action. As circulated by opponents, it would have changed the science standards to say evolution was "a fundamental concept underlying all of biology" rather than "the fundamental concept" (our emphasis added) and would have included language allowing teachers to "engage students in a critical analysis" of the evidence supporting evolution.

Supporters suggest the academic freedom idea originated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based outfit best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. In the aftermath of Tuesday's vote, the institute posted this critique: "Sadly, the proposed Florida science standards stifle will free inquiry because they too censor any real scientific challenges to evolution. Change is now necessary if Florida teachers are to be given the academic freedom to inform students about scientists who dissent from evolution."

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[Chris W]

Nick:

You contradict yourself. On the one hand, you say "you cannot say with certainty what lies in a person's heart" and then you say "To be God-soaked is to be very wise".

How can you tell someone who is truly "touched by God" from someone who is actually a treatable schizophrenic? For many years they used to be treated as if they were demonically possessed or speaking directly to God; now they get first- or second-generation antipsychotics, and they quit hearing voices.

It's related to the problem of "true religion" versus "false prophets". There's really no good way to tell which revelations are valid, and which ones are just hallucinations.

So, "God-soaked" isn't really an oxymoron. It's a useful shorthand for describing people who think their personal revelations should be adopted by everyone else. It's also a useful way to describe the gomers who spent all that time in front of Theresa Schiavo's hospice with red tape over their mouths.

[Nick]

Chris, you cannot say with certainty what lies in a persons heart. You can surmise, but you can never be certain. Judge a man's actions, but not the man.

"God-soaked idiot" is an oxymoron. To be God-soaked is to be very wise. My prayer is to be forever soaked in God's love, mercy and wisdom. The fool that doesn't, is truly the idiot.

[Chris W]

Nick, there *are* "god soaked idiots" in the creationist camp and you can probably name them. Just like with alcohol, there are people who can't take their religion in moderation and who become complete flaming idiots when they get with a hundred feet of a church. The trouble is that they are the ones that (a) try to drive the public agenda, and (b) grab the camera time and become your public face.

[BobC]

Nick, should the people of Florida let Rubio prevent science teachers from teaching science that conflicts with the stupidity of creationism?

Nick, are you a god-soaked idiot?

[Nick]

"The 'crux' of the disagreement, according to Rubio, is 'whether what a parent teachers their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?' "

And that's exactly what will happen. Bob C is a classic example of the mockery and deriding. Just read the tone of his posts above this one. This is a battle between normal people and god-soaked idiots?

You know for every person posting cogent arguments, there's a smug, pompous, elitist showing their true colors.

[BobC]

"Supporters suggest the academic freedom idea originated with the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based outfit best known for its advocacy of intelligent design."

Supporters suggest the idea to FORCE SCIENCE TEACHERS TO LIE ABOUT SCIENCE originated with the DISHONESTY Institute, the Seattle-based outfit best known for its advocacy of MAGIC.

The professional liars and idiots of the Disco Institute are part of a big business in America called Lying For Jesus. They want to replace the science of evolution with the stupidity of supernatural magic. House Speaker Marco Rubio and School Board member Donna Callaway are also liars for Jesus.

Isn't it interesting that the most stupid and most dishonest people in America are Baptists?

[BobC]

''So maybe it's not over. House Speaker Marco Rubio, R-Miami, who is often described as a likely future governor, told the Florida Baptist Witness in this story yesterday that the evolution battle 'will go on for quite some time' and that the House 'may have sufficient votes' to act on an academic freedom proposal being pushed by religious conservatives.''

This is a battle between normal people and god-soaked idiots like Rubio. Rubio, you are a disgrace to the human race. Grow up moron.

Rubio wants to force science teachers to lie to their students about science. He calls this academic freedom. Get out of our state Rubio. We don't need subhumans like you in our government. We don't need traitors like you who want to destroy the education of Florida's students. Take your Christian sky fairy and shove it up your ....

[Drew Smith]

Nick wrote: "Why do you all think it's better for the state to guide our children then their parents? Aren't parents the first, and most important, line of education?"

I responded: "Straw man argument. The issue isn't over who is better qualified to 'guide' children, but instead, who is better qualified to provide them an education into the best available science."

Nick responded: "It's not a straw man argument, it goes to the crux of the matter in respect to whether or not you believe in limited government and personal freedom or government involvement at the expense of freedom."

No, Nick, it has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in any of those things. It has to do with certain people who want to use government as a tool to push their personal view of religion, instead of using their existing homes and religious gathering places as the appropriate venues for religious instruction.

***

Nick wrote: "Parents aren't asking evolution to be banned are they?"

No, they're asking for it to be discredited as science by having the government sanction other, non-scientific views as if they were science.

***

Nick wrote: "It seems to me that true personal freedom will prevail for the good of all."

True personal freedom means that people push their religious beliefs in their own homes and in their own religious venues. True personal freedom means that the government is not used as a tool to push the religious beliefs of some onto everyone else.

***

Nick wrote: "Or are you incapable of exercising any faith at all."

I'm quite capable of it, as is anyone, but I have no need for it.

Marco's 100 Ideas for Florida book (did anyone read it?) included a demand for World Class Standards for our School Instruction. Unfortunately, he is the ONE blocking the movement of knowledge forward into the 21st century. So, was he pandering when he called for World Class Standards or when he critisized them? Which time was he lying? Who's on first?

[Chris W]

As to who best to guide our children, that's a bogus "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" type of question.

Who is best equipped to teach our children biology and decide what is to be taught in biology class in schools? If you want a quality education, the answer better be "biologists and biology teachers". If you think it's parents, you're much mistaken.

Most parents haven't had biology since they went to high school or college, and it's fair to say they don't remember much about it even if they did well when they took it. You wouldn't ask parents to specify what courses get taught in medical school or graduate school, or even in college. Why do you assume this is any different?

Oh, that's right. You're worried about having kids' beliefs undermined in schools, or "ridiculed". As a matter of basic decency, no teacher should ever ridicule a student for their beliefs. If those beliefs are at odds with scientific facts, then those differences should be gently (and respectfully) noted. But it shouldn't be omitted, and the course shouldn't have a bogus and transparently religious viewpoint shoehorned into it.

[Chris W]

Nick:

It is a straw man argument, and you should be aware of it if you aren't already. The problem is that the motives of the anti-evolution crowd aren't pure, and they aren't honest. This whole bogus "academic freedom" argument originates at the Discovery Institute, whose whole reason for being is to discredit evolution. But that isn't how they sell it. Instead they pretend to believe in academic freedom, but just wait until the first time someone would mention "alternative theories" and then get blown out of the water by actual evidence. You would hear whining and caterwauling like you never heard before.

Philip Johnson (a big poo-bah at Discovery) is explicit in his aims - he wants to replace naturalistic explanations with supernatural explanations, because he sees (rightly) that under the rules that science plays (and succeeds) by, there is no room for supernatural entities.

This is as it should be. Including supernatural *anything* in scientific work corrupts it beyond redemption, because it introduces entities that can't be described or tested and it removes a barrier to people forcing one belief or another on someone else. Science is the most democratic of endeavors, because it doesn't really matter *who* the researcher is; if the data don't hold up, and the logic is faulty, the results have no value.

[Nick]

Rubio, of course, his first name escaped me.

It's not a straw man argument, it goes to the crux of the matter in respect to whether or not you believe in limited government and personal freedom or government involvement at the expense of freedom. Parents aren't asking evolution to be banned are they? It seems to me that true personal freedom will prevail for the good of all. Have a little faith in freedom. Or are you incapable of exercising any faith at all.

[Drew Smith]

Nick asks: "Who is Marco?"

Considering that the article being commented on is about Marco Rubio, didn't that tell you something?

***

Nick wrote: "Why do you all think it's better for the state to guide our children then their parents? Aren't parents the first, and most important, line of education?"

Straw man argument. The issue isn't over who is better qualified to "guide" children, but instead, who is better qualified to provide them an education into the best available science.

[Nick]

Why do you all think it's better for the state to guide our children then their parents? Aren't parents the first, and most important, line of education?

[Nick]

"Marco, despite what your ghost-written editorials say, there is a difference between science and religion. Advancing supernatural explanations to explain natural phenomena --and I'm taking a real leap here-- doesn't exactly amount to a scientific theory. I'll make you a deal: I won't interject the scientific method into Genesis if you don't try to teach Creationism in my kids' science class."

Who is Marco?

it is appropriate to debate evolution on groups of supporting and refuting scientificevidence...

it is NOT however, appropriate to present intelligent design as one of the alternative explanations ina science class.

BIG DIFFERENCE FOLKS

[Ann E. Mouse]

Idiot.

[Piobair]

TALLAHASSEE, FL—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

Marco, despite what your ghost-written editorials say, there is a difference between science and religion. Advancing supernatural explanations to explain natural phenomena --and I'm taking a real leap here-- doesn't exactly amount to a scientific theory. I'll make you a deal: I won't interject the scientific method into Genesis if you don't try to teach Creationism in my kids' science class.

[Tom]

OK, lemme get this straight...

Rubio is a standard-bearer for the reduce taxes cause.

Rubio is vowing to fight to include 'academic honesty' in the science standards (read: Teachers can push the view of creationism or intelligent design in classrooms as their personal religious belief - even though the personal beliefs may contradict valid scientific research)

The Supreme Court and a host of federal district courts have struck down the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creationism as a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

Creating a policy that puts ID/Creationism into the curriculum is bound to lead to court cases - which the state is bound to lose based on existing case law.

Court costs money.

Money to fund the state's defense of this first amendment violation will come from the public coffers.

The public coffers are supplied by taxes.

Spending more requires a higher tax collection or - gasp - ANOTHER round of budget cuts in a cash-strapped state.

And, you can betcha a portion of that money is going to come from the state's education budget...

Now, how smart does Mr. Rubio's crusade look now?

[Ryan]

If the underlying principle is really about parents being worried that what they are teaching their kids are being underminded in schools, they have the complete right to pull them out of the public school system and either home school them or place them in a Christian private school. Public education should adhere to actual scientific principles (as agreed upon by the scientifict community...such as evolution)

"Rubio's comments follow Tuesday's vote by the Board of Education"

Usually an effective leader is out in front of the battle long before a vote.
(pro-active not reactive)

Strong words after a vote are not that effective.

Same with the Gambling expansion and vote last year,

Same with picking the wrong (longshot) candidate to rally behind in the primary.

Many missed opportunities to lead that were there for him.

[Chris Woodard]

Rubio is a bottom-feeding wannabe trying to cling to significance by stoking parents' resentments instead of working to make education actually.. you know, *better*. The sooner he's termed out and sent back to private life the better.

[Piobair]

It's never too early for a future governor to start pandering to the religious right.