Florida has joined the ranks of the states that have again introduced anti-evolution bills this year. Their goal is to open science education up to include the teaching of creationism.
The difference in the case of Florida is that while other states to introduce such bills try to hide their true motives, Republican Senator Stephen R. Wise made no bones earlier in February about the fact that he is all for the teaching of "Intelligent Design."
According to the News Jacksonville.com Web site, Wise said that he planned to "introduce a bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also discuss the idea of intelligent design." He went on to say, "If you're going to teach evolution, then you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking."
However, the language of Senate Bill 2396 is not quite so bold as to directly require the teaching ID. What it says, that the National Center for Science Education is calling anti-evolution language, is: "...thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution...."
According to some groups, this unequivocally opens the door for the teaching of creationism.
Comments
There is nothing to teach about intelligent design. It is a public relations ploy by the Discovery Institute to drive a "wedge" into science to get superstitious nonsense into the classroom.
Google "Wedge Strategy". The plan is all there. Morons of Wise's ilk would turn us backward and cripple this country in our scientific research.
The headline reads: "Florida anti-evolution bill introduced for science education" That's simply not true - the headline should have read: "Florida anti-evolution bill introduced against science education."
The mis-named Senator Wise is so ignorant of science that he thinks that the "other side" opposing evolution is only represented by intelligent design creationism, when in fact there are dozens if not hundreds of opposing "theories," some of which make even more sense to some people than intelligent design creationism - but none of which are actually "science."
When ID gets evidence, can be tests and observed and thus, actually becomes a science, only then can it be taught in science classrooms.
It is because of this that ID deserves no mention in science because it simply isn't science.
ID = Theistic based origin hypothesis
Evolution = Theory on the diversity of life with no mention of any gods.
Its clear that there is no comparison here to be made.
If anything, a bill should be made to increase the teaching of evolution as it is obvious that bills like the one mentioned in this article are made by people who have no clue about it.
In science class,
let's teach Cutting-Edge Science,
such as:
. . .
- The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings.
. . .
- Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less. These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field.
. . .
- There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.
Partial quote from:
What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins?
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
For more info,
Google:
"What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?"
Joseph,
There is no way that garbage is ever going to be allowed in a proper science class. I hope you're pointing out the breathtaking inanity of "religious science" and that you don't actually think there is any scientific merit in it.
No one with even a rudimentary amount of scientific common sense could believe in a 10,000 year old Earth... Gee-zus!
Joseph,
1. It's interesting to me that despite the discovery of numerous clear transitional forms (reptiles with feathers, fish with legs, hominids with ape-sized bodies and brains, etc), creationists still manage to cover their eyes and avoid looking at them! Well... there they are.
2. It seems to me unwise to claim that "no natural process can explain x". If history sheds any light on this issue, it is to show that in EVERY case thus examined (e.g., the explanation of lightning, volcanoes, meteors, disease, etc), there HAS been a natural cause after all!
What positive evidence can you supply to show this case is any different? Simply nay-saying isn't considered science. You actually need some positive, repeatable, predictive proof. Good luck!
BTW: I just googled
"What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?"...
...and what I got was:
"What Does the Catholic Church Teach about Origins?"
I hope you were joking... Regardless, better informed answers to your questions can be found at new scientist dot com/topic/evolution
I have yet to hear one critisism of ID that does not do the following:
1) Insult people's intelligence, by claiming that only Darwinists are smart.
2) Misrepresent what ID is.
3) Raising objctions that is irrelevant to science, such as the "motives for propmoting ID".
4) Adequately answer the objections to Darwinian theory.
Also, I have yet to see a Darwinist who fights just as hard to remove false evidences for Darwinism from textbooks, as they are fighting against ID.
Irreducible complexity is a fact. Kenneth Miller's "Refutation" of IC is invalid, because he changed the function of the BF. He needs to demonstrate the intermediate steps between the T3S and the BF, showing how each step remains useful.
Research 'pufferfish' and 'clotting factors' for an example of why irreducible complexity can be refuted.
Interesting article. I have just written an article about the Islamic concept of evolution, based on a new scientific experiment conducted in my home state of Oregon. I would be interested to see your feedback. Islam does not create this war between creationism and evolution. Islam believes in evolution and teaches that it does not contradict the power or existence of God.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!