Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

arroba Email

Could Florida’s Darwinian regulations be “evolving” from “fact” to free inquiry? In More on the vote on evolution and Florida’s new science standards Leslie Postal reports that teaching Evolution in schools is now mandated, but officially as the “scientific theory of” Evolution.

Will students now be able to seriously study evolution as “a scientific theory” – with all the testing, probing, and skepticism required by the scientific method? Or will they be Expelled for exercising their unalienable rights to free speech? – that founded the Declaration of Independence (which heads the US Codes Organic Laws) and are preserved by the First Amendment.
In a Special Report on the American Spectator Ben Stein writes::

Florida’s Darwinian Interlude
Published 2/20/2008 12:08:44 AM

Just a few tiny, insignificant little questions.

* How did the universe start?

* Where did matter come from?

* Where did energy come from?

* Where did the laws of motion, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry, come from?

* Where did gravity come from?

* 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?

These teeny weeny little questions are just some of the issues as to which Darwin and Darwinism have absolutely no verifiable answers.

Hypotheses. Yes. Guesses. Yes. Proof? None.

To my little pea brain, these are some pretty big issues about evolution, the origins of life, and genetics that Darwinism cannot answer. Now, to be fair, does anyone else have verifiable answers either? Not as far as I know.

But if there are no answers that can be reproduced in the laboratory, isn’t any theory about them a hypothesis or a guess? Isn’t any hypothesis worth thinking about? And aren’t these immense questions?

Yet the state of Florida, the glorious Sunshine State, was (I am told), until recently, considering legislation that would make it illegal to allow teachers or students in public schools to discuss any hypothesis about origins of life or the universe except that it all happened by accident without any prime mover or first cause or designer — allowing only, again, the hypothesis, which is considered Darwinian, that it all started by, well, by, something that Darwin never even mentioned.

That is, the state of Florida was considering mandating that only Darwinian-type suppositions can be allowed about scientific subjects that Darwin never studied. (This is not to mention that we know now that Darwin was wildly wrong about some subjects such as genetics, and, again, although he wrote about the evolution of species, never observed an entirely new species evolve.)

This was beyond Stalinism. Stalinism decreed that only Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin knew all the answers, but it did not say that subjects they never mentioned could only be studied if the student guessed at what they might have said. The proposed law in the state of Florida was an anti-knowledge, anti-freedom of inquiry law on a scale such as has rarely been encountered. Maybe in Pol Pot’s Kampuchea there were such laws, but they have been unknown in the USA until now. See the Full Article – Florida’s Darwinian Interlude
Bob Fliss reports: Science standards will call evolution scientific theory including:

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Tuesday’s speakers was that few fit the “faith versus science” stereotype perpetuated by “Inherit the Wind.”
Pro-amendment speakers frequently relied on scientific arguments, like the lack of fossil evidence for the “missing links” assumed by evolutionary theory. And the anti-amendment forces included clergymen who asserted that evolution and religious faith are compatible.

. . .

Today’s orthodox Darwinians “want to avoid debate by contending that the matter is already settled,” said Rich Akin, chief executive officer of Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, a Clearwater-based association of nonsectarian evolution skeptics.
“The fossil record continually reflects abrupt appearances,” Akin added. “Darwinian evolution is in a state of collapse scientifically and the state of Florida should not protect it.”

. . .

Several Roman Catholic voices joined the anti-amendment speakers. “I may be the only person in this room who’s actually an evolutionary biologist,” said Dean Joseph Travis of the Florida State University College of Arts and Sciences. Travis recounted first learning about evolution in Catholic school, and that the church has never viewed faith and scientific theory as incompatible. “Can we explain everything in the living world by our understanding of evolution — no,” Travis said.

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

Leave a Reply