New Science Standards Approved in Florida

anonymous_echidna writes "Florida has voted to accept the new K-12 science curriculum standards amidst a storm of controversy around the teaching of evolution, which had up until now been the scientific concept that dare not speak its name. There was a compromise made at the last minute, which was to call evolution a 'scientific theory', rather than a fact. While some lament that the change displays the woeful ignorance of science and scientific terminology, the good news is that the new curriculum emphasizes teaching the meaning of scientific terms and the scientific method in earlier grades."

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[flyingsquid]

For a biting critique of Florida's new standards, and a defense of craziness, see "Our Reputation for Flakiness is at Stake" by Carl Hiaasen [ http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/carl_hiaasen/story/421075.html [miamiherald.com]].

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[o'reor]

Man, thanks for bringing it up, I had forgotten Carl's name and I was fumbling around in the Colbert Reports archive, but there it is : Carl Hiaasen's interview on the Colbert Report [bravenewfilms.org], a true moment of fun.

Re:I accept evolution and I know God is real.

[CrazyJim1]

And there was evening and there was morning, the Nth day." If you hand-wave away that phrase, then what else do you hand-wave away?

Good point. The way I saw it was that God created light before the sun existed. The length of the time that light shown may have been much longer than 12 hours, and what I am suggesting is that it was millions or billions of years. Then when darkness happens, it is only for a short period. Analogous to how the world was in darkness for a short period until Jesus came, and now the world is full of the light of God, and will eventually last eternally. So the length of darkness could have simply been extraordinarily short compared to the length of a day. This is just my first thoughts on that. If you want to email me, it is [e-mail], and after I put more thought into it, I'll get back to you. Thank you for raising an excellent point.

Re:The news media is a major part of the problem

[drinkypoo]

asked his thoughts on Evolution which, in the words of Soledad O'brien, was the belief that man evolved from apes.

Speaking of "dumbing down", you have no idea what's going on, do you?

Referring to Evolution in this way and then asking an opinion (or the reverse) is an example of deliberate spin. You would never say that unless you wanted to get the "I didn't come from no monkey!" camp riled up, or you were an uneducated buffoon.

P.S. Jesus Christ, that woman looks like Ms. The Joker when she smiles. Plastic surgery, or inbreeding? YOU DECIDE!

Re:What compromise?

[Fjandr]

It's only a compromise in the minds of the school board members. They probably went through the same Florida schools and came out with zero understanding of what scientific terms really mean.

"Theory" to them is supposed to lower the standing of the teaching of evolution, when in fact it will raise it if those same science classes teach accurate scientific terminology.

Ultimately, it brings evolution back into focus in schools while simultaneously showing the school board to be uneducated dweebs. Win/win as far as I'm concerned.

Re:I accept evolution and I know God is real.

[vertinox]

If you hand-wave away that phrase, then what else do you hand-wave away?

Easy. The Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew which has no vowels. In order to read it, a Rabi would have to know the context of the words. When the Bible was translated into Latin and then into Vernacular one could say there is a bit of "finagalling" when it comes to terminology which somehow many people over look.

I forget the exact quote but I think in Psalms there is a part where they talk about the four corners of the earth and it being a sphere which many people like to point out as an example of the ancients knowing about the earth being round. But when you look the word up by its original definition in ancient Hebrew it translate as "Compass" which by all accounts and purposes was not a sphere in ancient Judea.

Others can point flaws to modern English translations such as the the Leviticus's part about homosexuality that there was no word for homosexual in ancient Greek. The literal translation meant "soft" or "feminine" which in ancient times more or less meant "weak willed".

The odd thing is that the Catholic Church and many Jewish Rabbis appear to have no problem with idea of evolution and big bang because they do not adhere to something that conflicts with the idea of genesis seeing that god could have used that as his method.

Ironically, most Christians who are literalists seems to ignore many of the dietary rules (Kosher, Parva, etc) set forth in the old testament that many modern Jews adhere (which also Muslims follow) and seem to not notice that Jews only read the bible in Hebrew due to the fact of the forementioned translation issues. My friend was raised conservative Jewish (not the orthodox) and she said even they would read the Torah in Jewish even in elementary bible study class at their synagogue as a young child.

Re:Losing relevance...

[value_added]

The only reason I see for this idiotic push to marginalize evolution and push creationism as a valid theory is because Christian conservatives see their influence on American culture slipping.

That, at least to me, is the interesting bit.

On the one hand, we're in the middle of an election cycle where there's serious issues with which to contend, and on the other hand, we have a vocal block of people and their elected representatives whose primary concerns are abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of evolution.

To be fair, I don't think the Protestant evangelical crowd is seeing their influence slip as much as they are trying to find relevance in a world that's changing around them. While fundamentalism in various forms has been on the rise both here and abroad in recent years, I'd like to think it's on the wane, at least where there's a sizable majority of the population ready and willing to move on and concern themselves with more important things. One reason among many that the prevalent theme of the current election campaign is change.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[smooth wombat]

but without being able to see the process in nature, it is difficult to justify calling it scientific fact.

Yeah, because without all those fossils showing us the evolution of a horse or human, there would be no way to show the evolutionary process in action. And let's not forget the different shapes of the beaks of the birds that Darwin studied. Those certainly don't show any kind of evolutionary action.

Why do people keep insisting that Evolution, the act itself, isn't a fact? If there were no fact, then there wouldn't be a theory. The only reason theories come about is because of a fact.

Re:Losing relevance...

[Idiot with a gun]

I think he mentions it because traditionally, the Catholic faith has been seen as resistant to change, as compared to the Protestants (who were formed in an attempt to break free of the Catholic church, which they saw as corrupt and dogmatic). But now it's switched, and the Catholics are moving into the new world, and the Protestants refuse to adapt. Or they won't evolve, if you will.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[tompaulco]

Yes, there is a law of gravity, and it is WRONG. However it is still a good rule of thumb for work in systems smaller than say, our solar system. Newton's law was unable to explain the orbit of Mercury using the law of gravity, because the distance is great enough that relativity comes into play.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[lky]

Actually there is no single theory called the Theory of Evolution. Darwin proposed 5 theories that work together.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Jesus Fucking Christ

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is a theory of gravity. It replaced Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. The theory is backed up by sufficient observation (the precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing) to have replaced the law.

There are aesthetic reasons to be unsatisfied with Einstein's Theory. It is difficult to reconcile with quantum mechanics. And there are nagging difficulties with the brightness of Type 1A Supernova and the red and blue shifts of receding and approaching sides of galaxies.

A Christian Perspective

[PHPNerd]

I don't see what's so wrong with teaching evolution. I mean, honestly, if God does exist, then he created this place for sentient beings to explore and understand. That means: science. And if science points to evolution, then my question becomes: why couldn't God have used evolution to create humans? I cannot see the God that the Bible describes planting "fake evidence" on the earth and then laughing at us as we try to figure it out. That's just plain rubbish.

Re:I accept evolution and I know God is real.

[F.Prefect]

Um, doesn't the Bible say that the Earth was here BEFORE there was light?

Yes it does. But let's imagine for a moment that God is telling Moses the story of creation as though the observer's point of view were on Earth itself. The early solar system is coalescing into planets, the Sun, etc. When the Sun ignites the planets are already largely coalesced. The solar wind sweeps the system clear of the remaining gas and dust. So our (long-lived and surprisingly hardy) observer on the newborn Earth sees the Earth in the dark, then sees the Sun come in to view as it ignites and clears the solar system of obscuring clouds of dust and gas.

That's how I interpret it anyway.