Florida’s Darwinian Standards evolve to “a scientific theory”

Casey Luskin writes on: Florida State Board Tricked into Meaningless "Compromise" to Retain Dogmatism and call Evolution "Scientific Theory"

Despite the fact that the meaningless words "scientific theory" were inserted into the standards, the standards still retain dogmatic language and reject the excellent suggestions of the Minority Report that would have required that “Students should learn why some scientists give scientific critiques of standard models of neo-Darwinian evolution or models of the chemical origin of life.” If the State Board of Education wanted to do it right, then they should have protected the academic freedom of teachers to teach students about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution. One good aspect of Florida's new standards is that their section on the Nature of Science states that students should “use critical and logical thinking, and the active consideration of alternative scientific explanations to explain all the data presented.” But as Mr. Fred Cutting, writing-committee member, wrote in the Minority Report, “Somewhat inexplicably, there is no indicator in the proposed standards that applies this philosophy of science education to biological origins.”

etc. DLH

chuckhumphry, amen brother. PannenbergOmega

gpuccio, Have you read Chuck Norris' recent commentary piece at World Net Daliy? We need only look at what Dawrinism has wrought to know that it is an immoral science. Even if the science went against ID science (yet, thankfully, the science is clearly on our side), we'd have a moral reason to combat Darwinism.

[W]e teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys. We place our value in things, yet expect our children to value people. We disrespect one another, but expect our children to respect others. We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children. We push God to the side, but expect our children to be godly. We've abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment, "Thou shall not murder."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56619 chuckhumphry

Often, on this blog, I have tried to affirm, withour any possible compromise, that the darwinian attempt to mess with the categories, and to pass the theory evolution as a fact, even on so called "peer reviewed" journals, is one of the greatest sins of our fellow enemies, a shame for rational thought and a complete degradation of scientific debate. If darwinian dogmatism has so plagued the minds of its supporters that they are no more able to understand, or simply accept, the difference between theories and facts, then we are really in full epistemological tragedy. If you add that these same people hold all the scientific power and resources, and prevent any due opposition to their cognitive ramblings, then it is obvious that a paradigm shift becomes, more than a revolution, an absolute necessity if we are to intellectually survive. For the nth time: facts are facts, and theories are theories. Facts are observed (well or badly); theories are inferred (well or badly). Facts are descriptions and recordings of sense perceptions, more or less direct. They are shared through sensory control and validation. Their "truth" depends only on how much the observation can be controlled and shared. Facts are true if they have really happened, and if they have been correctly observed. Our reliance on facts is dependent on our reliance on the existence of an external world, and on our reliance on the ability of our consciousness to correctly perceive and represent it. The "truth" of facts is empirical, not logical. It depends on perception, not inference. Theories, on the contrary, are logical connections between observed facts, often of mathematical nature, which try to build cause and effect structures. Theories rely on innate functions of consciousness, like logics and mathematics, and are not empirical, although applied to the empirical reality of facts. The purpose of theories is a double one: "explain" what we have observed (the facts) by logical and mathematical connections and, if possible, predict new observations. Theories are inferences, and not deductions. Theories infer new contents which cannot be deducted with absolute certainty from the premises. That's why theories are never ultimately true. There are better or worse theories, according to how much they can explain or predict, and to how much they can't explain or predict. But they are never, never ultimately true. A theory can always be overcome, or falsified, in at least two ways: 1) another theory can explain what is known in a better way, or 2) new facts can falsify the existing explanation. Therefore, all theories can always be challenged. There are very important theories (such as newton's mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics), controversial theories (such as string theories), and, worst of all, very inconsistent and unsopported theories which are forcibly and dogmatically passed as non controversial (such as the theory of darwinian evolution). But that was not enough. Darwinists were not satisfied that their theory was falsely acclaimed by almost everyone as non controversial. They were not satisfied that their theory had practically become a new, widespread religion, and one of the most dogmatic. They wanted more. They wanted something else. And so, they changed their theory into a "fact", achieving the supreme alchemic success of our depressing culture. gpuccio

Is it just me or does Darwinism seem to be becoming more and more like Lysenkoism 2 ? Not in terms of the content, but in terms of how it goes about being propagated. Jason Rennie

Larry Fafarman, I agree. If someone called Einsteinian motion "the theory of Relativity", no one would bat an eyelid. Everyone knows that the scientific word "theory" is different than the colloquial usage. chuckhumphry

The constitutionality of calling evolution a "theory" was a big issue in the Selman v. Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker case. The sticker said, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” A district court judge ruled that the sticker was unconstitutional. In an oral hearing on the appeal, appeals court judge Ed Carnes told an attorney representing the plaintiffs/appellees, "I don't think y'all can contest any of the sentences. It is a theory, not a fact; the book supports that." -- and -- "Your difficulty is that you've got to take something that actually is reflective of the content of this textbook you like so much, and say it violates the First Amendment." Another judge on the panel, Frank Hull, questioned how the federal district court could have found the sticker's language misleading to biology students when there was no evidence to support that view. The appeals court vacated and remanded the lower court's decision because of missing evidence. A new trial was granted. The Cobb County school board finally took a dive, settling out of court. Larry Fafarman

As a parent with two kids in the Florida school system, I hope the teachers aren't bent out of shape when I contradict the standard Darwinian line as I help my kids with their homework. Barb

Ben Stein has a gift for cutting through rhetoric and exposing hidden agendas. "* How did inorganic matter, that is, lifeless matter such as dirt and rocks, become living beings? * Has anyone ever observed beyond doubt the evolution of a new mammalian or aviary species, as opposed to changes within a species?" Those points, by themselves, regardless of the scientific obfuscation of a vocal few, comprise the problem with teaching science as if it were fact. If all the science community brings to the discussion consists of what ifs and maybes, it seems odd that the historic memories of man and God should be swept into the dustbin of history for being untestable. What differences separate Darwin's speculations on the creation of man from any other speculation? At the point where we allow speculation into science classes, there should be no barriers to the speculation other than those imposed by time constraints. In the old days that was called common sense. Second_Ammendment

Be sure to check out Tom Bethell's American Spectator review of Expelled as well: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 GilDodgen