Religion has nothing to do with it?

Are critics of the state's new science standards asking the rest of the public to take a leap of faith?

Many of them said repeatedly during the tug-of-war leading up to the Feb. 19 Board of Education vote that their concerns were grounded in science and evidence, not religion and faith. Never mind that leading opponents included the Florida Baptist Convention; the Florida Family Policy Council, a group that supports Biblical family values; and Donna Callaway, the BOE member who publicly announced her opposition through the Florida Baptist Witness.

Now the same argument is being made about the "academic freedom" bills recently filed in the Florida Legislature by Sen. Ronda Storms (left), R-Brandon, and Rep. D. Alan Hays (right), R-Umatilla. The bill language says it does not "promote any religious position" and refers to the right of teachers to present "the full range of scientific views." It does not mention creationism, intelligent design, or any other faith-based theories.

But it's worth pointing out that both Storms and Hays are Baptist, and both make no bones about their strong religious backgrounds. Hays notes on his House website that he picked up the Christian Coalition Faith & Family Award in 2005 and 2006. And last month, Storms filed a bill (SB 2010) to create an "I Believe" license plate, which would feature a crucifix and send proceeds to Faith in Teaching, a group "dedicated to funding education in Florida's faith based community."

If Storms and Hays had a poster child for their bills, it might be David Brackin. The Orange County middle school teacher was one of 10 critics who addressed the BOE Feb. 19, and he told board members, "If I am to lead my students into true scientific inquiry I must be allowed to teach all the evidence including the cracks in and the weaknesses of evolution."

Brackin told The Gradebook yesterday that he was "chastised" years ago by an assistant principal, who told him he could not talk about religion in class. But Brackin said he never mentioned religion. Instead, he said, "I refuted evolution. I talked about the weaknesses in evolution."

Brackin said he now teaches at a school where the principal "believes in academic freedom." He said although he did not think it was relevant, he is an evangelical Christian. He also said he thinks intelligent design is as scientifically valid as evolution. "Neither one can be proven," he said. "Nobody was there."

- Ron Matus, state education reporter

Comments

[Remember in November! Vote Storms and Hays Out]

Storms and Hays are wasting the public's time and money. Remember these names, and vote them out of office at the first opportunity.

[club penguin mission 1]

These morons obviously know nothing about science. More people should point out the obvious fact these politicians are idiots and liars. Storms and Hays and the other uneducated god-soaked Florida politicians are not any different from the god-soaked 9/11 terrorists.

[Drew Smith]

David Brackin writes: "To anwer the question as to where I am publishe. Look up my name in scientific jounals on the study of Ecology. I'm one of the assistant researchers."

A search of the database Ecology Abstracts (which covers scientific journals on the subject of ecology) finds no authors named Brackin.

[Chris W]

Mr. Brackin:

You are a sterling example of the standard creationist tactic of quoting dead authors out of context and without the background that would discredit what you say. From Talk Origins we find this in regard to Louis Bounoure:

"As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

As to your other quotes, Gould was a strong proponent of his punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution; he had no doubts at all about it taking place, and he was trying to demonstrate that his mechanism of evolution was more plausible than original Darwinism.

Hoyle's conjecture was based on faulty assumptions (as are many cosmologists who make pronouncements on evolution without understanding the mathematical structure required).

Sir Edmund Leach was a social anthropologist, not a biologist. And he was more than a little eccentric in his own right, proposing that mankind ought to interrupt and direct the development of the world going forward. Leach had a history of saying provocative things that generally were not worth listening to.

Darwin was being hestitant, as befits a scientist who bases a theory on the copious but still limited observations he made.

As to giving us your CV, you might do us the favor of telling us *which* ecology journals you were published in as "assistant researcher". Normally, when someone is really published they say things like "I was first author" or "I was third author". Only someone who's trying to inflate their resume and gain credibility they don't have would try to parlay a "special thanks" note to an assistant researcher into a publishing credit.

[Tom]

"Man will never go to the moon."
"The Earth is Flat."
"The Earth is the center of the Universe, the Sun and all stars rotate around it."
"If man was meant to fly, he would have wings."
"The Titanic is unsinkable."

Your point?

[David Brackin]

Scientist that question the theory of evolution: "You will be greatly disappointed it will be grievously too hypothetical" Charles Darwin to John Lofton. Prof. Louis Bounoure(Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg) "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." Sir Fredrick Hoyle (English astronomer Cambridge University) "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make randon concept abaurd." Edmund Leach (British Associaton for the Advancement of Science) "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would turn up, but they are still missing." Steven Gould "Paleontologist are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories; but the often forget that ;pausible stories need to be true." Do a little research there are thousands of other evolutionist that join me in my questions about macro-evolution.
To anwer the question as to where I am publishe. Look up my name in scientific jounals on the study of Ecology. I'm one of the assistant researchers.
D Brackin

No Pete, don't generalize about any group. Baptists are not special in their diversity of opinions and degrees of liberalism.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

BobC,
You should not generalize about Baptists. No way.

There was concern that creationists would gain a majority on the Texas BOE in yesterday's election.
Didn't happen.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/030508dnpolsboe.3bfabc9.html
Veteran on state education board holds own against creation backer

Hardy was challenged by social conservative, creation science backer

11:49 PM CST on Tuesday, March 4, 2008

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News

Result:
http://www.dallasnews.com/elections/state_results.html?rid=48684

State Board of Education - District 11 - GOP Primary
Texas - 572 of 572 Precincts Reporting - 100%
Name Vote %
Hardy , Pat (i) 59%
Maddox , Barney 41%
=================

Hardy, the good guy who won, is a Baptist. Harry Parrott,a retired Baptist minister, is is the president of the Clay County chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

BobC notices the word games, but try this one:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/03/darwinist_activists_at_florida.html

They think if they play enough word games they can get away with teaching their heart's desire.

Recall: The so called "weaknesses" are the usual bad but carefully misleading arguments that creationists make instead of doing science. They had a whole book of these weaknesses, and it said it was presenting creationism. Then creationism was found to be sectarian and not legal to teach in public school science classes. SO they went through the book and changed all the references to creationism into “intelligent design”, and changed creationists to “design proponents”. But in their haste they left this Missing link: “cdesign proponentsists”.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

Then intelligent design was found unconstitutional. So the new tactic is to use a phrase like “strengths and weaknesses” and pretend it has nothing to do with either creationism or ID, even though the content behind the phrase is the same.

[amused]

I find it amusing that the "Danbury BAPTISTS" of Connecticut, were responsible for lobbying Thomas Jefferson for the "Wall of Separation"!

[BobC]

Creation magic keeps getting renamed by the god idiots so they can stick their stupidity into science classes. They always lose in court but these morons never stop trying to destroy education.

Here are some of the name changes that have been made to the childish idea called magical creation:

1. Creationism
2. Creation science
3. Intelligent design
4. Teach the controversy
5. Academic freedom

The moron politicians in Florida are trying #5 right now. What they call academic freedom is really freedom for incompetent science teachers to lie to their students.

Creationist idiots, we know what you're up to and you will never get away with. We know you're liars and we know you're uneducated. We know you are trying to tear down our wall of separation between church and state. You will always lose in court. You are just wasting taxpayer money. You are also being laughed at. The entire world is laughing at the breathtaking stupidity of the fat and ugly Senator Ronda Storms.

[BobC]

"But it's worth pointing out that both Storms and Hays are Baptist, and both make no bones about their strong religious backgrounds."

It's also worth pointing out Storms and Hays have stupid looking faces.

I noticed virtually all Baptists are afraid of science. Cowards and stupid people are attracted to Christianity. The Baptists are the worst. They are the most uneducated and most cowardly people in America.

They want teachers to be allowed to teach "the full range of scientific views." I would bet Storms and Hays don't realize that intelligent design magic and other versions of creation magic are not scientific.

Stupid ugly fat uneducated politicians like Storms and Hays should not be allowed to dumb down science education. These morons obviously know nothing about science. More people should point out the obvious fact these politicians are idiots and liars. Storms and Hays and the other uneducated god-soaked Florida politicians are not any different from the god-soaked 9/11 terrorists. They are trying to destroy science education and they are enemies of our country. They are no better than terrorists and they should be treated like terrorists. If there was any justice in this world Storms and Hays would be deported or put in prison.

[Pete Dunkelberg]

"Are critics of the state's new science standards asking the rest of the public to take a leap of faith?"

Yes, and curiously if the faith is justified, that is if nothing but real science education would result, then the proposed legislation is not needed.

But as discussed here:
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/03/antievolution_legislation_intr.php

it is a fill in the blanks bill from the DI's playbook. There is some indication here:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/cordova-rewrite.html

of their trustworthiness.

[Chris W]

Pretty much any time a creationist or one of their supporters says something, you can be sure it's b.s. on some level.

[JLO]

In one of the paragraphs of this article, "Brackin said he never mentioned religion."

And in the next paragraph, "He said although he did not think it was relevant, he is an evangelical Christian."

Why is it that I don't believe him? Why is it that my bs meter is pegged?

[Chris W]

Brackin betrays his leanings when he says "nothing can be proven". Only an insecure fundamentalist pines for "proof", the way only a Sith deals in absolutes.

And he was a science teacher? Wherever he is now, he's a much better fit in an evangelical environment.

[Drew Smith]

Bracken is quoted as saying: "If I am to lead my students into true scientific inquiry I must be allowed to teach all the evidence including the cracks in and the weaknesses of evolution."

And these "cracks" and "weaknesses" are what, exactly?

***

Bracken is also quoted as saying: "I refuted evolution."

And Bracken's article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal where he did this was published where, exactly?

***

From the article: "[Bracken] thinks intelligent design is as scientifically valid as evolution."

Let's compare the scientific peer-reviewed literature in support of each, shall we? Oops. No comparison.