Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Government Science Politics

Bill Allows Teachers to Contradict Evolution 1049

Posted by Zonk
from the legislating-science-is-a-challenge dept.
Helical writes "In an attempt to defy the newly approved state science standards, Florida Senator Rhonda Storms has proposed a bill that would allow teachers to contradict the teaching of evolution. Her bill states that 'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.' The bill's main focus is on protecting teachers who want to adopt alternative teaching plans from sanction, and to allow teachers the freedom to teach whatever they wish, even if it is in opposition to current standards."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bill Allows Teachers to Contradict Evolution

Comments Filter:
  • by Naughty Bob (1004174) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:03PM (#22637220)
    I only had to look at my teachers to see that they contradicted evolution.
  • by krog (25663) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:07PM (#22637308) Homepage
    God willing, math teachers will be the next to be freed from the chains of having to teach facts in school.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:09PM (#22637350)
    I want the state OUT of my bedroom

    Uh...you consider K-12 classrooms your bedroom?

    Maybe you shoulda posted that as AC...

  • by Maximum Prophet (716608) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:09PM (#22637354)
    Proponents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will now be able to teach their viewpoint and will flock to Florida. Yeah!
  • by ZipK (1051658) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:09PM (#22637368)
    Finally we'll be able to teach Pastafarianism in public schools! www.venganza.org
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:10PM (#22637376)
    How come every time I read some news like this I start to hear "Dueling Bangos" playing?

    How about a law that says that if I don't believe pot causes health problems I can choose to smoke it legally?
  • by bckrispi (725257) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:13PM (#22637454)
    ^ Mod -10,000,000: dumbshit.
  • by Butisol (994224) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:16PM (#22637510)
    Reminds me of Ms. Garrison "All right, kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution. Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of *bullcrap*! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this..." "In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its... ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!"
  • As my ID pushing narrow minded coworker said:
    "The Bible IS science."

    I shit you not.
  • Yes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ADRA (37398) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:22PM (#22637634)
    The flying spaghetti monster has always sought to be taught in Florida classrooms, and thanks to some foresight by genius politicians, he can!
  • by zakezuke (229119) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:41PM (#22638060)

    They should put a little protection in there for those that want to teach the Flat Earth concept, too.
    Don't laugh, I went to a catholic grade school which had books in the library that honestly showed a earth centered solar system.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @01:57PM (#22638432) Homepage
    I can't tell you what a progressive move this is for supporters of the movement for the recognition of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a religion! And if this bill passes, it will open the door for its truth to be taught in schools!

    Please write your representatives to THANK them for opening the door for this wonderful moment in history!
  • by The_reformant (777653) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @02:04PM (#22638578)
    So say you ground-dweller, plus the wi-fi extends for 1.6km up here.
  • by edwardpickman (965122) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @02:05PM (#22638602)
    It's okay he's a Catholic Priest.
  • by OshEcho (971542) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @02:36PM (#22639184)
    "The only reason science (and evolution) bothers you is that when we get around to measuring things, the hard, cold facts contradict a few chapters of your religious books. And you are willing to lie to try and protect those chapters. You are willing to pass laws that pi is 3.0 instead of 3.1415 because of a biblical verse. You are willing to kill people because of a biblical verse. You are willing to behave extremely immorally in order to protect your religious verses. To me that says more about your faith in your version of god (who should not be threatened by facts)."

    I don't think that pi is 3 because that is the approximation that the Bible gave. 3.1415 is also an approximation of pi, just to a different degree. The Bible does not say for us to go killing other people.
    There are people who call them selfs 'Christians' who will pick verses from the Bible and ignore others. There is a small minority of Christians who believe every verse in the Bible and understand the context that it is in. In the Bible there is a verse that says that there is no God. There are people who will take that verse by it's self and conclude that God doesn't exist.

    Also, if you don't think there is scientific evidence for creation, check out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ [answersingenesis.org]

    "Let's keep schools for *facts*. And the theory of evolution is just as much a fact these days as the theory of gravity is."
    I agree that only facts should be taught in schools. However, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is not proven. It has not ever been proven that one type of creature will evolve into something completely different. Only that there are differences withing one species of animals, like dogs.
    Check out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp [answersingenesis.org]
  • by mybadluck22 (750599) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @02:56PM (#22639624)
    Actually, they orbit their shared center-of-mass, but I know what you mean.
  • by Keyslapper (852034) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @03:02PM (#22639714)

    to the ID mob I give you .. "the platypus".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus [wikipedia.org]

    Go explain that one with ID.
    God + Wacky Tobaccy = Platypus ...

    The new math ...

    Doh! more karma up in smoke.
  • No (Score:2, Funny)

    by davidwr (791652) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @03:17PM (#22640024) Homepage Journal
    The Sun revolves around the shared center of gravity of CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal. :)

    *ducks*
  • by Frequency Domain (601421) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @03:37PM (#22640384)

    As my ID pushing narrow minded coworker said: "The Bible IS science."
    So your co-worker claims that any part of The Bible which conflicts with observable evidence can be rejected?
  • by chooks (71012) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @04:17PM (#22641180)
    I'd hesitate to call clinical doctors scientists

    Well let's see, a patient comes in with a complaint. The doctor forms a hypothesis as to what is causing the problem(s) based on the available data (presenting signs, symptoms, epidemiology, etc..). He/she then orders tests or medication to gather additional data to support or refute the hypothesis. Based on the data from the tests, he/she either forms a new/better hypothesis, or arrives at a probable diagnosis.

    Yeah -- I guess you're right. That doesn't sound very scientific-methody at all~.

  • by mad.frog (525085) <`steven' `at' `crinklink.com'> on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @04:17PM (#22641198)
    I'm still hoping for someone to require math textbooks to have a sticker saying something like,

    "According to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem [wikipedia.org], this book may contain statements that are true, but not provable"
  • by haystor (102186) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @04:46PM (#22641680)
    Sometimes they forget a moon and have to go back and get it. Notice that it never happens to Venus or Mercury.
  • by nitpickers (1250794) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @04:54PM (#22641816)
    See! I didn't say that, you insensitive clod! And never will!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @05:30PM (#22642340)

    If this was actually done ("all" the evidence), then no one would have the slightest doubt about evolution, anymore than someone looking at the Earth from space would still question a flat earth. The problem is that most people don't want to look at the all the facts, because reality would conflict with their world view. Therefore, they ignore the facts.

    The way some people freak out about this, you'd think evolution was a religion.

    People "freak out" because it's the forces of ignorance attacking the forces of truth.



    first, we have to define terms. micro-evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. macro-evolution has *not* been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. i know many want to conflate the issues and leap the gap without providing any supporting evidence, but that just makes my point.

    *if* you had the irrefutable evidence, you'd present it. you don't, so you, well, don't. you just proclaim it truth and fact as though that makes it so... such arrogance.

    macro-evolution, or some form of it, may well have played a role... or not. the truth is, we don't know. there are gaping holes in macro-evolutionary theory (me). first and foremost are the discrete species we see around us. me strongly imples a continuum of species where several transitionary species coexist with the latest and greatest species. the ide that only the end point species exists is rather unreasonable. there is no natural law that states the most advanced survivability index (si) species is the only one that will survive. cats and dogs have different sis and survive together just fine. now, it may be the case that a few species would see every prior transitional species go extinct, but 100%?

    forget about the absolute dearth of transitional species throughout history, the fact ZERO can be identified beyond a reasonable doubt is a *MASSIVE* chink in me's armour.

    not to mention the theoretical contradictions in me. for example, me says that land dwelling species morphed into what are now whales. the logic problem is that a hybrid land / water ear is a DISADVANTAGE in BOTH land and water! me states that only advantages would continue... but here we have a disadvantage existing for thousands of years that eventually turned into and advantage. theoretically, of course, B/C NO HYBRID TERRESTRIAL / AQUATIC EAR HAS EVER BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!

    even expert macro-evolutionists contest the typical "poster children" of me transitional species...

    http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html [unc.edu]

    Archaeopteryx is proclaimed to be one of the very best examples, if not the best example, of a transitional species. even it can't stand up to scrutiny.

    so, since you chose to be a bit vague, i can't say whether you were wrong or just very misleading. i bet it was the former, but one never knows.

    the idea that me is rock solid science just isn't there - no matter how much your emotionally want it to be true. as the gp stated, this is equivalent to religious ferver.

    is me, or some similar form of it, the reason we see the variety of species all around us? there is some evidence for, there is some evidence against... we really don't know. that's the truth that should be taught in school.
  • Re:No (Score:3, Funny)

    by mattsucks (541950) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @06:24PM (#22643050) Homepage
    Gravity? There is no such thing as gravity, there is only the Theory of Intelligent Sticking Together.
  • by cleatsupkeep (1132585) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @07:04PM (#22643594) Homepage
    Did you create that account just for the joke?
  • by Capsaicin (412918) on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @09:44PM (#22645150)

    What are you on about?

    You can't follow his logic? I think it runs like this: An nineteenth century biologist drew inaccurate, and perhaps even fraudulent, images of the embryos of various species therefore YHVY created the world in 6 days. Or did I miss a step there somewhere?

Nothing succeeds like success. -- Alexandre Dumas

Working...