Go ahead and teach creation

It looks like the Florida Legislature will have its say on the role of evolution in the science classroom, after all.

State Sen. Ronda Storms, a Brandon Republican, has filed what she calls the "Academic Freedom Act" (SB 2692) with a stated goal of "providing public school teachers with a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical origins."

In the findings section of the bill, Storms writes that the Legislature finds that many Florida teachers have "experienced or feared discipline, discrimination or other adverse consequences" for presenting a "full range of scientific views" regarding chemical and biological origins.

Her bill would would ban penalizing teachers for teaching alternatives, and disallow action against students for taking a position on evolution.

There's no related House bill filed yet.

Brandon Haught, blogger for Florida Citizens for Science, calls the proposal "typical grandstanding" and predicts (hopes?) the bill will go nowhere: "This bill was written in a way to make it way too obvious what the purpose is, and so it won’t be taken seriously."

Still, he writes, it "wouldn't hurt to write to your Florida legislators to let them know what you think of this."

Terry Kemple, president of the Brandon-based Community Issues Council, praised the effort. He worked closely with Storms in preparing the legislation.

"Finally teachers and students will have the opportunity to cover all the information regarding the theory of evolution," Kemple said in a news release, in which he also noted that a House member will be filing the same bill.

The Legislature convenes tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Comments

[Tom]

What do you expect from a woman who is a product of Florida's failed public school system? In all seriousness, I have to wonder though, what the "evidence" to be presented in a classrom will be - the Bible, no wait, maybe the skies will open up and a big booming voice will explain how he created mankind in seven days.

[Dave]

This legislation reads like it was written by a four-year-old.

[Ryan]

I wonder, in her mind, what a "scientific view" constitutes (hint: Intelligent design and Creationism are NOT scientific views).

[Curt]

The theory of evolution is about the most likely version of the begining of mankind. What is her alternative to this theory? Let me guess it must be Adam and Eve. Why is this religous nut case still in senate? What good does she do for her district anyway? Remember the Showgirls bar in Valrico? How much did that one cost Hillsborough County tax payers? The bar is still open. Why even teach students about the begining of man kind. One is a theory the other is a fictional story in the bible. What a waste of time. Why doesn't she just go to church and stay away from the capitol.

[Drew Smith]

Will someone kindly inform Senator Storms that "academic freedom" does not include the right to pretend that religion is science?

[Babalu]

Yay! Finally kids can start to learn how the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating everything with a touch of his noodley appendage.

[Dale]

I believe in the Flat Earth Theory. For too long, the proponents of the so called "Round Earth THEORY" have controlled the indoctrination of our youts.
I DEMAND that the Flat Earth theory be taught in Florida schools along with the so called round earth theory.
Then the children can decide for themselves which it true.
After all, if the earth were round, as the revisionist would have us believe, people would be falling off the earth every day!
The truth is so obvious.
The earth is FLAT.
Wake up, liberals!

[Chris W]

This is about what you'd expect from Storms and Kemple. She's a hard-shell Baptist and lawyer, which means she doesn't know (and doesn't care) what she's talking about in scientific matters. My horseback guess is that she's trying to keep her base stoked up with legislation that won't go anywhere, with the added benefit that she gets to puff up her Christian sense of persecution by playing the martyr when it goes down to defeat.

I can't wait for the school boards to start screaming about how she's interfering with their ability to make sure their teachers are following the cirriculum (which she is).

[Steve]

Looking for evidence of the missing link: take a drive around Rhonda Storm's legislative district - trailer parks, dirt roads and white trash - if ever there was tangible proof of the evolutionary connection between primates and mankind, it is there.

[Amy]

Rhonda Storms is the antichrist. She is a wacked weirdo, how she ever got elected is beyond me. How about she writes a law that makes teachers teach reading, writing and math. The rest of it is up to the parents.

[jeff]

What can you expect from a right wing conservative? Republican conservatism is a direct threat to democracy and the American way of life and leads to intolerance and ignorance. Creationism should only be taught if they also teach that the world is flat and the universe revolves around the earth. It's the "Flintstones Theory".
These neanderthals are holding us back.

[Eric]

I guess Storms doesn't want her Senate seat. After all, in every election where teaching evolution was a major issue, the evolution proponents have lost hands down. Taking such a political position indicates Storms is ignorant and obviously unqualified for office.

[Ryan]

Hey Jeff, don't insult neanderthals like that

[mike]

So easy, even Ronda Storms can do it!

[Rob Holiday]

All religion is in decline. In about 200 years, the only remaining "religious" people will be considered cults.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

Tom asks "In all seriousness, I have to wonder though, what the "evidence" to be presented in a classroom will be...."

It's right here in the Index to Creationist Claims. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Oh, and in a couple other articles: "Quotations and Misquotations", and "The Quote Mine Project". The stack of misleading euphemisms, with "academic freedom" now at the top, leads right back to the same old stuff.

[Curt]

Wow Rhonda doesn't seem to have many supporters here. How does she keep getting reelected? There must be too many baptists in Hillsborough County.

[scienceman]

Now what are teachers supposed to do? Go read the "book of Genesis" in the bible and get caught back up on the creation thing?

And in the classroom, the student population is as diverse as society. So, if a teacher were to discuss a theory of creation, which one would be used? A protestant point of view? A Judaic one? What about the Hindu religion or Islamic students in class? The Navajo indian tribes believes in a creation by the "Hero Twins." Everyone of these religions has there own version of the story of creation.

How could a teacher teach one belief in the story of creation and not offend others?

Would a Protestant person like Ms. Storms want a Jewish or Catholic teacher teaching "their" version of how life began?

[Tampa man]

Looking for evidence of the missing link: take a drive around Rhonda Storm's legislative district - trailer parks, dirt roads and white trash - if ever there was tangible proof of the evolutionary connection between primates and mankind, it is there.

Come on my man. We all dont live in trailers on dirt roads. My road is paved

[Dave]

This is what you get when you elect a piece of white trash with a sub-standard education like Rhonda Storms to represent you in the legislature.

[Pat]

Why are you people afraid to allow teachers to teach creation as a possibility to how man began? Do you think if your child thinks: "Hey, maybe God did create man" that some great cosmic thing will fall from the sky on them. I don't think so. The same God that created man also created the whole cosmic universe even before He created man. So He controls that as well. Oh, and scienceman, the Jewish and Catholic religion both believe and teach the exact same thing as the Protestant religions as to how man began - God created Adam and Eve.

[Jason A.]

Teach all the "theories" and let students decide for themselves. The 3 major ones are God created everything in 7 days; evolution; and that there were distinct (cro-magnon, neanderthal, homo-sapiens) races of humans, but we adapted the best and survived and that's why there are no missing links and no real evolution in the last 10,000 years or so.

[Dave]

Pat, even if creationism were a serious possibility for our origins, it is not a scientific theory because it cannot be empirically falsified (dear God, how many times does this have to be said?). Where would you draw the line? Would you advocate teaching ALL creation myths in science class as "possibilities", or just the fairy tales you happen to favor?

[Bob]

Wow! What are you evolutionist afraid of? Perhaps you are afraid of the biggest lie ever told (evolution) will be exposed. The science classroom needs to start with the correct premise. You have two choices: Man evolved over a period of millions of years from a single cell or man was created by God. Don't make the wrong choice here!

[Keith]

Curt:

Ronda keeps getting elected because her supporters can't read.

[Marc]

If God is all powerful, why can't God create a stone so large that he can't lift it.

[hoshi]

All I know is I am glad I am secure in my faith of God. Also, that I don't have any kids going to school in Florida. Not because I am afraid of them hearing both sides of the story as I have told them that anyway, wanting them to make their own minds up, but because you can't decide how to run your schools. Teach this, no don't teach, let's change the times every year, lets change the boundries every year and my personal favorite; 15 students to one teacher, Florida needs to make their minds up on how the school system is to be run and leave it alone.

[Keith]

BTW, I believe the earth formed on the back of a huge tortoise and humans evolved from an ear of corn, and I would like that taught in our classrooms.

[steprazor]

Look, I am no Ronda Storms fan, but before either side gets in a huge fit over this, conside what the bill actually does.

All it says is that teachers cannot be penalized for presenting mutiple "scientific" arguments concerning evolution.

A science classroom is a perfectly appropriate setting to discuss and debate varying SCIENTIFIC theory, and there are some (albeit few) scientific studies that examie contra views to Darwin.

THE DIFFERENCE is that this should IN NO WAY authorize teachers to present
Creation Theory as IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC...just protect them from scrutiny for presenting alternative SCIENTIFIC theories.

The devil's in the details people...make sure you get the language clear and firm, and this bill is harmless.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

Jason, only a few "kinds", not millions of species, could have been maintained on the Ark. There must have been rampant evolution in the last few thousand years.

[Bryan]

On what scientific basis should be be teaching fairy tales to our children? Our fundamentalists (Ms. Storms) are no better than the Muslim fundamentalists. Why don't we just set up training camps where our kids can be told about Jesus all day and become "Christian Warriors". Oh yeah - that's what Church is for. Try not to drink the cool-aid kids! Faith is a wonderful thing - just keep it to yourselves.

[Curt]

Pat
Your idea would be fine if every single person in this country was a follower and believer of the Old Testiment. We have a constitutional right to freedom of religion in the USA. That means religious teachings need to be kept out of public schools. Religious belief and its teaching should be done at home only to protect the rights of people to choose to or not to believe. If you want to teach your children about creationism have at it, but leave my kids out of it. If Adam and Eve is how man kind started we are all the product of inbreading. Evolution, creationism, and intelligent design are all theory. Instead of the debate drop it all from the curriculum.

Keith,
Thanks man I now understand how this nut could be reelected.

[Patrick]

I, for one, welcome our new Insect overlords.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

Curt, evolution is what happens in nature. Of course there is a corresponding scientific theory of it. Creationism, including Designer label creationism, is not a theory in the scientific sense. There is no theory of Design, of how, when, or why the Designer designs, testable predictions, and so on. Creationism is an unsupported assertion, and a pile of arguments against evolutionary science - arguments known to be bunk.

Evolution is essential to understanding biology. To leave it out of the curriculum would be a travesty.

[Eve Ryman]

Evolution and God are NOT mutually exclusive!

Our problem lies in our belief that the Bible is the literal word of God. It was written by imperfect people who had their own personal belief and intentions.

Go ahead and believe in God, but put the Bible in proper perspective - it is NOT A TEXTBOOK. It has no place in a science classroom.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

Eve, good point. You don't honor the Creator by refusing to believe the creation. See the Clergy Letter Project:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm

[Marc]

I went to school in Germany back in the 1970's. In History class they started with human evolution, the stone/bronze/iron age. Then go start going through the different civilizations. Oddly, when they hit modern history there is this strange gap from 1911 - 1946 that they skip (dunno, some strange law against teaching about Nazism). Maybe Rhonda can create a bill that skips teaching that part of Biology all together.

[silverroughy]

Academic freedom works both ways. If you want to introduce the ability to criticize Darwinian theory with creationism and intelligent design, then those 'alternatives' can also be open to criticism.

So students can learn in the classroom all the flaws of the bible and its account of the creation - for example, not all people are descended from Adam and Eve (Genesis 4:16-17, Cain found his wife east of Eden and there were enough folks in the land of Nod to establish a city that Cain called Enoch).

This is just one example of how we will be able to criticize the bible, creationsim and intelligent design. Is this what you want to have happen in the classrooms across the state?

[Drew Smith]

Pat asks: "Why are you people afraid to allow teachers to teach creation as a possibility to how man began?"

We're not "afraid" of anything. We're just aware that it is not the purpose of the public school system to be used as a tool to advance anyone's religion. If you're unclear about this, I suggest that you read the Dover decision.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

What are the evil Darwinists afraid of? The Designer fearing creationists have a great store of designedly misleading and often false material to teach. Much of it is covered in the Index to Creationist Claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

More detail is covered in The Quote Mine Project. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

and in Quotations and Misquotations also at the talkorigins site. This material can easily mislead someone who has little knowledge of biology. At best this is a large distraction from valid material. The creationists have no valid material to offer, but Storms' proposal would make it impossible in practice to prevent them from presenting their invalid material and claiming it to be valid. Do we need Dover type trial every day?

[Curt]

Pete Dunkelberg ,

You are correct. Evolution is what happens in nature. The problem is Rhonda Storms thinks teachers should be able to interject their religious belief to their students as an alternative to nature. The idea teaching the theory of evolution with the alternate biblical tale is not right. I don't want science classes to turn into bible study. This is her intention by submitting this bill. I support any ones right to religious belief, but I feel there is no place for it in public schools. She like many religious people think evolution is bad because it weakens the brain washing process they put on their children. For the sake of putting this debate to rest I say drop it from the curriculum.

[LetYourLifeSpeak]

GO FOR IT! This bill supports anti-discrimination for teaching all "scientific alternatives" to Darwin's theory of evolution. The only "scientific alteratives" are the ongoing inquiry and discoveries that tweak the details of the "theory" (which has yet to be disproven). Which means that Florida teachers will actually have the option of teaching the most up-to-date science on the ongoing evolution of life on earth, without reprisals from fundamentalist Christians and Scientologists! Cool!! Thanks, Rhonduh!!

[LetYourLifeSpeak]

GO FOR IT! This bill supports anti-discrimination for teaching all "scientific alternatives" to Darwin's theory of evolution. The only "scientific alteratives" are the ongoing inquiry and discoveries that tweak the details of the "theory" (which has yet to be disproven). Which means that Florida teachers will actually have the option of teaching the most up-to-date science on the ongoing evolution of life on earth, without reprisals from fundamentalist Christians and Scientologists! Cool!! Thanks, Rhonduh!!

[Dave]

Many preface their comments with a nod to how good faith is. People, faith is belief in things without proof. This is not virtue - it is irrationality. It should not be praised or even taken seriously. Although widespread, and usually mild, faith is essentially pathological.

[Charlie Crist]

Rhonda your Hot.

what a stupid idea!

o, i see, it came from an ignorant republican (check for redundancy)!

of course.

people too ignorant to understand what "theory" means in a SCIENTIFIC context!

im looking for one of those nimrods to tell us EXACTLY what SCIENCE there is besides the theory of evolution.

SCIENCE, i said, not BAD theology hyped up by folks to stupid to understaned that EVEN the BIBLE contains TWO DIFFERENT accounts of "creation"

(how do you jackasses decide between which one to believe?)

words fail to describe how ignorant these folks are!!

[Bob]

To Rob Holiday, who wrote "All religion is in decline. In about 200 years, the only remaining "religious" people will be considered cults."

How I wish you were correct. But read Bruce Bawer's book "While Europe Slept - How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within." Scary stuff.

[Pat]

Oh what a great discussion. Right now I'll just respond to Dave. You say that faith is belief in things without proof. I have never seen you, heard you, but I've read your words. From that I have to have faith that you even exist. More importantly, I have to have faith that you even have a brain. Now you're going to say 'but I wouldn't be alive if I didn't have a brain.' With evolution, that's not necessarily true. Evolution is still after all these many years just a theory. Have you ever stopped to wonder why man with all it's SCIENCE has never found a way to transplant a brain - successfully. The brain did not evolve, it had to have been created by something or someone with a much higher power than you or me. The brain is where the mind is, it's how you think. Scientist still have not been able to explain an idea. What is an idea, prove your answer. It all comes right back to faith. Faith is believing. I've never seen God but I have faith he exists.

Now to all you scientists out there, read my Bible that I believe in and prove - not theories - but proof that it is wrong. It's never been done. But those who HAVE tried to, have ended up believing in a Creator, God.

[Chris W]

Pat:

Fine, but first define what you mean by "wrong". Creationists and other religionists have a shifty habit of moving the goal posts every time someone asks a question they can't answer.

[Pat]

WOW! whoever you are that posted at 2:38 but didn't leave even a code name, please, please tell me about the two different accounts of creation in the Bible and please give the Scripture references - what book, chapter, verses. I been reading and/or studying the Bible for about 60 years and I've never read but one.

[George G. Morgan]

Academic freedom? Freedom of speech? You have to be kidding! Ms. Storms has no clue as to the meaning of either term. She has repeatedly shown herself to be a closed-minded, bigoted individual. She is living proof that some species have, indeed, evolved -- AND that there are throwbacks (in every sense of the word).

upon reflection, it is not nice to address these folks as harshly as they have been addressed, but how else to get their attention?

YOUR PASTORS and TEACHERS HAVE LIED TO YOU AND CONTINUE TO LIE TO YOU!!

YOUR PASTORS and TEACHERS HAVE LIED TO YO AND CONTINUE TO LIE TO YOU!!!!!!

GOT THAT?

they should KNOW that there are two different hebrew theologies represented in the first two chapters of genesis, each with its own view of CREATION, set down at least FIVEHUNDREDYEARS apart in real time.

BOTH are RIGHT in terms of the theology presented.

if their PASTORS and TEACHERS havent told them so, either they are IGNORANT or LIARS!!

likewise, MS. STORMS IS LYING TO YOU!!

[Pat]

Chris W. I use Webster's definition of wrong. In my Faith in a resurrected Christ, my goalpost never moves - it is anchored in concrete (using an earthly or human metaphor.)

[Chris W]

Pat:

Here you go.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

[Pat]

One last comment and I've got to go. Mr/Ms No Name, I think you've just proved my point. You keep saying pastors and teachers have lied. Ok, I know what they (at least in my little part of the world)have taught. How have they lied? Where's the proof? Give us the REAL story. Our pastors and teachers have given us details of their stories. Where's yours?

3.10....

genesis 1 and genesis 2

provided your bible has a reliable introduction to the scriptures and adequate footnotes

the "seven-day" story reflects the priestly view of creation (P), put down in writing 600-500 b.c.

the second story, about genesis 2: 3 or 4ff, reflects the yhawhist tradition (J), from about 1000 b.c.

note the two different "names" for god:

in the P, it is god, in the J is is LORD, an agreed upon usage to substitute for YHWH, the 'unutterable name of god"

each source uses those respective terms for "god" EXCLUSIVELY!!

also, the original hebrew for each "story" reflects a different and appropriate stage in the development of the written hebrew language.

how do you think that happend?

if you are really interested see the recent richard elliot friedman text on ths bible and its sources.

about three years old.

he identifies each of the FOUR sources for the pentatuch, J, P, E (elohist) and D (deuteronomist) and a few other odds and ends

enjoy!!

[Chris W]

Pat:

Looking up "wrong", here's what we find (for the adjectives):

1. Not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; "an incorrect calculation"; "the report in the paper is wrong"; "your information is wrong"; "the clock showed the wrong time"; "found themselves on the wrong road"; "based on the wrong assumptions".

2. Contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie".

3. Not appropriate for a purpose or occasion; "unsuitable attire for the office"; "said all the wrong things".

4. Not functioning properly; "something is amiss"; "has gone completely haywire"; "the telephone is out of order"; "what's the matter with your vacuum cleaner?"; "something is wrong with the engine".

5. Not according with the facts; "unfortunately the statement was simply untrue"; "the facts as reported were wrong".

6. Based on or acting or judging in error; "it is wrong to think that way".

7. Not in accord with established usage or procedure; "the wrong medicine"; "the wrong way to shuck clams".

8. Not conforming with accepted standards of propriety or taste; undesirable; "incorrect behavior"; "she was seen in all the wrong places"; "He thought it was wrong for her to go out to work".

9. Used of the side of cloth or clothing intended to face inward; "socks worn wrong side out".

10. : badly timed; "an ill-timed intervention"; "you think my intrusion unseasonable"; "an untimely remark"; "it was the wrong moment for a joke".

(reprinted undef Fair Use from http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/wrong)

So you're going to have to pick out which one you mean, then you're going to have to tell us which parts of the Bible can't be proven wrong.

Pat, you don't need faith that I exist. You could instead adopt a more scientific approach and form the theory that I do based on the evidence of my postings. That way, if I suddenly start typing in binary 10010101001010101 or hexadecimal 42EA204189F, you can modify your theory in line with the Turing test and hypothesize that I'm actually a computer. But by adopting faith as your M.O., you lock yourself into dogmatic positions and then have to ignore subsequent evidence, ostrich-like. There is no certainty, but people "of faith" can't handle that frightening reality.

that goes for you, too, 3.24!!

if they haven told you of the sources for the pentatuch -- and the rest of the scriptures as well-- they are either IGNORANT or LIARS!!

try learning something on your own instead of listening to LIARS who do nothing but manipulate you with fear and ignorance!!

To 3:16, both accounts may be theologically correct in some abstract sense, but they are both factually wrong.

NO, 3.35, they are BOTH absolutely
correct as FAITH STATEMENTS!!

and that all they are:

"FAITH STATEMENTS"

your comment is beyond absurd and maenaingles, indicating you have absolutely no grasp of the theological process or reasoning behind any portion holy scripture, let alone the two creation stories in genesis!!

damnation!!

ignorance abounds!!

Dear 3:52, I object to you calling my post "maenaingles." I repeat, the two accounts in Genesis are factually incorrect. I already conceded that they may be theologically correct in some sense. You may have that realm - it has no basis in reality.

NO!, 3.35,

both accounts ARE totally CORRECT as "FAITH STATEMENTS" and that is what they are today, were when "composed" and always will be.

"FAITH STATEMENTS", answering the eternal questions of why are we here and "who" put us here.

neither story -- nor any story in holy scripture -- are/were meant to be videotapedrepaly of certain events.

NEVER!!

your statement is so absurd as to be ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY MEANINGLESS in the context of any serious theological discourse.

especially your words: "theologically correct in some abstract sense..."

theology is not abstract but seriously REAL!!

i guess maybe you thought you sounded like a "real theologian" with those words, eh?

sorry for your delusion

[Chris W]

4:03 - So if I understand you correctly, a "faith statement" doesn't have to be factually correct as long as they're spiritually "true". Do I have that about right?

4:03, thanks for tidying up the spelling. I would never claim to be, or to want to sound like, a theologian. I'm much more interested in reality than fantasy. As for the Bible not being videotape, please tell that to your fundamentalist literalist buddies. They may disagree,

[Ryan]

Why do creationists frame their arguments as evolutionists being scared? That seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, since they're the ones defending an undefendable position.

Is there black litter in Tampa, maybe some hispanic refuse and asian garbage too? Some of you here have an interesting way of expressing yourself with extreme hatred and uglyness. Why? Aren't liberals suppose to be tolerant and respectful of other people and their feelings?

'a "faith statement" doesn't have to be factually correct as long as they're spiritually "true".'

you are getting warmer

just take notice of the four gospels:

each of the 3 synoptics tell essentially the same "story" but with variations, some "minor", some much "more than minor".

yet, each story is "true", yes?

add the fourth gospel and there are some serious variations from the synoptics in language, order of stories, settings and point of view, original material and the like, yet the story is essentially "true", yes?

"faith statements" are not 1+1=2 "factual"

"faith statements" tell a far deeper "fact" or "truth", and point even deeper and farther than the "story" itself.

*****************************

frankly,

"I repeat, the two accounts in Genesis are factually incorrect. I already conceded that they may be theologically correct in some sense. You may have that realm - it has no basis in reality.",

sounds like some seriously twisted gnosticism.

SERIOUSLY TWISTED!!

or.........

you are contending that what is written in holy scriptures is not "true" but subject to a certain special interpretation by those in "the know"...gnosticism, which is heresy!!!!

Er, no, not gnosticism, just reason. Look, if it gets your rocks off to tie your mind in pretzels so you can cope with the cognitive dissonance induced by simultaneously holding that mutually contradictory gospel accounts are all true, knock yourself out. I'm not contending that the gospel accounts require gnosis; I'm contending that they are factually inaccurate. Simple timeline analysis proves this beyond reasonable doubt.

P.S. Thanks - I haven't heard the word "heresy" used in earnest since the middle ages. Are you some kind of exorcist?

[hoshi]

Thank you 4:35, liberals are only tolerant of people who believe and think as they do. I guess this will all be irrelevant on the day of our Creators return, when many will be gone and many will be left. I do not need to get into this mean tale of who knows best because there is no winning side. If we dare believe in something that others can't imagine to be true, than we are "one short in the mental department" which I am not. I am highly educated in business and work everyday in the corporate world. Yet I believe in God with no shame. Many of you are yelling freedom of religion, well than were is ours?

[hoshi]

Oops, that should have read "where is ours? before you all jump all over my inability to write.

hoshi, no intolerance here - like I said, if it gets your rocks off, knock yourself out. And what, exactly, leads you to believe I'm a liberal? Have a nice rapture.

[grafixer]

Everyone needs to do a quick search and read about the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy. The neo-creationists in Florida are being used by the Discovery Institute just like the Mormons were used in Utah, and other evangelicals used in other states. If our legilators allow this bill to pass, they are indeed opening the door for creationism to be taught in public schools. Now it is time to find out if Florida's legislature is smart enough to know that they are being duped by the Discovery Institute and their deceitful followers falsely calling this bill "Academic Freedom". It is actually Academic FreeDUMB.

[hoshi]

I don't know that I was personally talking to you, there is a very long line of comments on this page. And thank you I will have a wonderful rapture...

hoshi, just please park before you go, and get a car with a sunroof.

[hoshi]

Well that really won't be in my hands but I will do my best ^o^

[grafixer]

Hoshi, I would fight to protect your right to practice whatever religion you choose. I will fight just as strongly to make sure that NO ONE pushes their personal beliefs onto children through the public school system. Churches have private schools, Sunday schools and services where they can teach their version of creationism. But, Science class in a public school is just that.. Science and Public Schools. If churches want "fair and balanced" then they need to start paying taxes and allow real evolutionary science to be taught in their private schools and churches. I seriously doubt their definition of Academic Freedumb will ever be applied within their own schools.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

grafixer makes a good point about the Wedge Strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

but once people get going on the Bible it may be too late to introduce any new topic.

Grafixer, I totally understand what you are saying and I am not, I repeat not a Bible thumper, personally can't stand them. I do appreciate that you would fight for my right to worship my God and I stand at your side for your beliefs. I did utilize private christian school for my children for the exact reasons you are saying and if we christian parents do our job as we are supposed to, our children will know both stories. Mine do. And I am very glad of this because they have to operate in a world of many beliefs. Neither of them married Christians and if they were taught intolerance of other beliefs their marriages would be in the toliet. Thank you for using a name as I hold little credibility to those who rant and rave and won't even put a name with their comments.

I am not sure why it didn't add my name on the last post to Grafixer but it was me Hoshi

"Now to all you scientists out there, read my Bible that I believe in and prove - not theories - but proof that it is wrong."

No, see, this is where you miss the point. YOU have to PROVE it is correct WITH supporting evidence in order for it to be science. YOU can believe it. Good for you. But you cannot prove it, you cannot test it. No more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the story of Xenu.

That 5:20 post was not me, Hoshi, but some imposter. Probably that nutjob 4:37.

[hoshi]

It's not nice to do things like that 5:29 pm - yes it was me Hoshi

[Drew Smith]

Pat writes: "Evolution is still after all these many years just a theory."

No, evolution is both a fact *and* a theory. A theory (in science) is not something that somehow metamorphs into a fact with sufficient time. A theory is something that *explains* a fact. The *theory* of evolution explains the *fact* of evolution. When you make comments that something is "still" a theory, it tells the rest of us that you don't even understand what scientists mean by "theory".

***

Pat writes: "Have you ever stopped to wonder why man with all it's SCIENCE has never found a way to transplant a brain - successfully."

For the same reason that we've never yet found a way to travel to Alpha Centauri. They are both technologically difficult. But the fact that some things are technologically difficult has nothing to do with whether or not humans have evolved.

***

Pat wrote: "The brain did not evolve, it had to have been created by something or someone with a much higher power than you or me."

Because...?

***

Pat wrote: "Scientist still have not been able to explain an idea."

They haven't? According to whom? (An idea exists as a pattern of nerve firings in the brain.)

[Hoshi]

I apologize.

[jeff]

Man created God in his own image - it's all fairy tales, folks - we are responsible for OUR OWN destiny - not some gray bearded guy sitting on some cloud taking all into account - wake up, humans, - move forward as a species and throw out all of this fundamentalist dogma crap! Jesus was a wonderful human being, so was Mohammad, so was Prince Sidhartha - the Buddha -
HUMAN BEINGS - not creatures sent from "heaven" with super powers - they were great prophets and teachers and we should learn from them, but not worship them as gods. Think for yourself and move forward.

[Mark]

What are the residents of Brandon thinking when they vote? I think Brandon should bcome it's own country if this lunatic continues on her tirades...then they can teach whatever they want in their own country.

[Chris W]

Drew, this "brain did not evolve" is a fallback position for "the eye did not evolve" that has been shown to be wrong *and* silly. She thinks she can get away with it because the brain is an order of magnitude more complicated than the eye, but she's wrong there too. There are brains all over the animal kingdom at all levels of complexity, which is good circumstantial evidence that the brain *did* evolve rather than being created.

[LYLS]

Pat, re: your comment "Now to all you scientists out there, read my Bible that I believe in and prove - not theories - but proof that it is wrong. It's never been done. But those who HAVE tried to, have ended up believing in a Creator, God."

Who'd you ask? Your preacher? Or did you actually research the subject with an open (scientific) mind willing to learn the truth from the results? The Bible (in its many versions) has been proven factually wrong on many isssues and self-contradictory on many more. Don't ask us to write a thesis on this for you in the TBO comments. Just visit any library or even Google it if you know how to sort out reliable sources. Oh wait, but your only "reliable source" for truth is "The Bible" (whatever version)...

[Tom]

Well, by golly, there should be an Academic Freedom Act, Senator Storms! By golly, just think how we could really improve the learnin' here in Florida with that! Fer instance:

* That silly Holocaust thing is just some sort of smear campaign on Adolph Hitler. It never happened!

* We never landed anyone on the Moon. It was shot on a sound stage in Holywood!

* Besides, the Moon is made outta green cheese - no one could stand there!

* Slavery was a great thing because just look how happy they look singing and dancing!

* Oh, and anyone who isn't White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant is inferior to those who are.

* Every Muslim in the world is out to blow up everything they see.

* Only a dufus would believe that the world is round. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that flat is flat - that's what we believe, by golly!

* Oh, and disease is caused by things like standing outside on a cold day, bad air and God's wrath. After all, who has ever seen one of those Germs they talk about...

* And, the world was created when Xenu was spit out of the volcano...

Oh, wait, that last one didn't agree with the personal views held by Rhonda Storms....

Man, do I feel that those fettered voices of teachers need to be set free to teach all of their personal beliefs! State standards? Academic research? Sound scientific theory? Who needs that rot? After all, we're all about freedom, right?

God Bless America...

Shesh...

[Tom]

Snip ** Now to all you scientists out there, read my Bible that I believe in and prove - not theories - but proof that it is wrong. It's never been done. But those who HAVE tried to, have ended up believing in a Creator, God. **

OK, here's a shot at it.

Pat, you believe the Bible needs to be taken literally, since Genesis tells the entire creation story EXACTLY AS IT HAPPENED. (That's what needs to be taught in schools, right?)

Because you consider the Bible as a piece of Journalism, it has to be factually correct in every detail and cannot use any literary device (allegory, hyperbole, etc.)

In John 5:15, Jesus says "I am the vine, you are the branches."

The last time I got cut, I noticed I was bleeding and didn't have any wood under my skin.

I have also witnessed several cuts and injuries on family members and friends, and never once observed anyone made of wood.

Since my direct observations and the information contained in countless of peer-reviewed scientific findings leads me to believe that none of us is made out of wood, either Jesus was a) Flat out lying to us, or b) using a literary device to teach a lesson or explain a difficult concept.

Since you and other Creationism backers hold that every word in the Bible is literally true and that the creation story in Genesis happened EXACTLY as written, we have a bit of a problem here.

Therefore, your Theory of the Bible as journalism is called into question. Which means that, yes, the writers of the Bible COULD have been establishing a creation myth to explain the difficult question of, "Where did we come from?" to the masses... you follow?

Now, all we have to do is convince those who believe Creation needs to be taught in classroom that it's OK to believe in God AND science at the same time...

[Matt]

So in the opinion of some of you its less likely that a so-called "big booming voice" is responsible for the creation of the earth, than simply a big boom. I would love to know how something blowing up created living, breathing organisms and how that idea is more likely than an all powerful, intelligent creator who knew what He wanted and made it.

[Chris W]

Matt:

You're trying to shave the dice again. Big Bang versus "God Spoke" is a retrospective argument, and what makes "big bang" more probable is that we can draw a line from that big bang to life as we know it here without needing to invoke a hands-on creator (which is what I suspect you are pining for) every step of the way.

[Drew Smith]

Matt asked: "I would love to know how something blowing up created living, breathing organisms..."

The Big Bang wasn't "something blowing up". The phrase "Big Bang" is a convenient, simple phrase to describe a complex series of events in the history of the universe, but if all it brings to your mind is an "explosion", then you haven't spent much time reading about what took place during the Big Bang.