Florida backs evolution in schools (kind of) - February 20, 2008
The controversy over whether pre-college school standards in Florida should include mention of evolution has come to a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion. New science standards voted in by the state education board will mention evolution, but only as a theory (Reuters).
Board member Roberto Martinez was unhappy about the addition of the word theory: “We’re watering down the best possible standards we could have.” Others disagreed, with fellow board member Donna Callaway saying the change was “a very minimal addition” (AP, or watch the video archive of the debate). There’s a nice run down of Martinez vs Callaway on the Orlando Sentinel blog:
Callaway said, “You’re saying there is only one theory.”
Martinez: “I say that evolution is a fact and it is a fundamental fact.”
Callaway: “There is a great difference of opinion in the world...There may be other theories ... This is a point of debate.”
Martinez: “It’s not a point of debate or controversy in the mainstream scientific community.”
The Miami Herald also has some great quotes from them, including this frankly baffling one from Callaway: “If we decide that we’re going to hide this debate and we’re going to hide the controversy, and we’re going to hide the fact that thousands of people disagree, then we better get with the witness protection program.”
Approved by four votes to three, the new standards are getting a reasonable response so far among supporters of the teaching of evolution (aka people who understand science). Comments from blogosphere below the fold…
“It’s okay. They basically superimposed themselves on the experts, but that's part of the political process,” says Robert Meisels, a chemistry professor at the University of South Florida (The Ledger).
“It is one small step forward, at least,” says biologist PZ Myers. “I'll take it. It’s still ludicrous that the creationists think they achieved something by attaching the ‘theory’ dog-whistle to the agreement.”
“If creationists thought they were undermining evolution by calling it a theory, they just demonstrated their own scientific illiteracy. Florida kids benefit from this, and teachers do as well,” says Joshua Rosenau, biologist and employee of the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education..
“To placate these equivocators, the board decided to remind everyone that it is a scientific theory. Not a bad concession, but why not remind them that gravity is just a theory too?” asks astronomy major Jon Voisey.
Not so happy was another biologist, Wesley Elsberry: “We know from prior experience that when one agrees to language from the anti-science advocates, they have some angle for exploitation of that language. While Florida standards now do mandate the teaching of evolutionary science, they also have the antievolution back-door installed. There will be further years of dealing with antievolution efforts in Florida because of this action.”
Meanwhile, in the people who don’t understand science camp the Discovery Institute warns: “While it is good that students will learn about evolution, these standards will make for bad science education because they elevate Darwin’s theory to a dogma that cannot be questioned.”
Image: Florida, slightly more friendly towards science this morning / NASA Visible Earth
Comments
I'm not entirely clear on what the problem here is. Evolution is a theory, it's a good one precisely because it is a falsifiable theory. That's as good as it gets.
This is as opposed to irrational claims that have no basis in observation and experiment and that are not falsifiable under any circumstances, like those proposed by creationists.
Posted by: Steven Ericsson-Zenith | February 20, 2008 08:07 PM
The problem with the label "theory" is that the anti-evolutionists have a habit of declaring that evolution is "just a theory" in the more colloquial sense and then step into a discussion of alternatives (meaning ID and creationism). Yeah, that is illegal, but stopping the many creationist-leaning teachers from doing it requires a lawsuit by a parent of a child in each class where this happens. That is not likely to happen in most cases, so many creationist proponents get a pass on introducing their religious views.
Posted by: Jon Moore | February 20, 2008 09:15 PM
Just as said by Jon Voisey. why not add "theory" to discussions on gravity, or every other science topic for that matter? It does single out evolution unnecessarily.
Posted by: Felix Finch | February 21, 2008 07:39 PM
In response to the other remarks.
Curiously, gravity IS a scientific theory and theories related to gravity HAVE been falsified. Evolution is a proud theory and theories that relate to it have and can be falsified. The term "scientific theory" SHOULD single out Evolution from an idea that is not a theory at all in the scientific sense.
Conversely, it should be clear that "creationism or "intelligent design" is simply NOT a theory in any sense. It is an assertion based on false intuition and is not falsifiable.
Even if God turned up tomorrow and said "I did it!" it would not be falsifiable, and it would not constitute a scientific theory. It would be something else altogether and "surprising" would be the least of it.
The dismissal "it is JUST a theory" is born in ignorance, on both sides, about what science is. In addition, it is founded a poor use of language.
For my part, I am happy that evolution is a theory. It is founded upon observation and experiment and new discoveries are testable against it. Science requires we be open minded, not closed minded.
New discoveries may indeed falsify Evolution but that would only lead us to better theories, not to the acceptance of irrational ideas.
Posted by: Steven Ericsson-Zenith | February 22, 2008 08:59 PM
I should mention that is is my opinion that pre-college school standards should not include mention of religious or political material of any kind outside of a dispassionate presentation of historical facts. These matters are for parents in my view, not state run institutions.
Posted by: Steven Ericsson-Zenith | February 22, 2008 09:07 PM
I agree that evolution is built out of science however controversial it still is. Creationism might seem to be entirely religious, but I also have seen many scientists who come to discover creationism as a valid theory without being religious.
As one of many such literature, the Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel outlines the science.
At the end of the day, I think it depends on what people chose to believe. As a research scientist, I know how people's interpretation and their choice of what to believe can affect which side to take on even purely scientific issues.
As to what to teach in the schools, I was taught evolution. Whether I was entirely convinced of it or not is another story. I think students have their own right to make up their own mind. More imporantly, I think it is better to keep open-minded and respect each other's choices although it might be tempting to try to force people to take one's side.
Posted by: KL | February 28, 2008 01:49 PM
I'm not entirely clear on what the problem here is. Evolution is a theory, it's a good one precisely because it is a falsifiable theory. That's as good as it gets.
===============
christopher martin
Posted by: Real Estate | July 28, 2009 04:27 AM