It is mind-boggling that it wasn't like this before.

The amazing ignorance of these nut-job Christians will bring US down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It'd be great if they taught real history in schools, but they doesn't seem likely anytime soon. They could start with Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are stupid ignorant people everywhere. But the only ones that are proud of it are the religious ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

they can vote the BoE out.

I'm sure that orange was heartbroken to find out it's related to someone so fucking stupid.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...when they teach physics, are they required to call it the "scientific theory of gravity"?

After all, gravity is "just a theory".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...when blathering idiots like this have the privilege of speaking into a microphone...

Oofta...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"They said they were "vigorously opposed" to the evolution language because it "clashes with their religious convictions or their personal beliefs that evolution has not been proved."

So- since you are too stupid to understand the overwhelming scientific evidence, or make a personal choice to reject it because it conflicts with whatever religious doctrine you grew up with, the rest of the nation must follow suit. Talk about "idiocracy."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a conviction this man is an idiot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author of this article has fallen into the Creationists' trap of conflating what is rightly called a scientific theory with the layman's notion of a theory. In layman's terms, the term theory often refers to some sort of speculation that is unproven or untested (what in science would be called a hypothesis).

To a scientist, the word theory does not carry the same connotations as it does to the layman. For instance, most people would not deride Atomic Theory as "just a theory"--they understand that there is a strong body of evidence to support it.

The author should take care not to perpetuate the falsehoods and equivocations of the Religious Right. I think any evolutionary biologist would be pleased, not dismayed, to hear of the Florida Board of Education's decision today to call it by this name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I teach Biology and I suspect natural selection will eventually catch up with this type of thinker. I have a conviction that the oranges may have been the most intelligent organism at the podium.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You took the words right out of my fingers.

Darwin's book?

The Theory of Evolution

I'll bet the dipsticks on the Florida Board of Ed would have a hissy fit if they knew that. Maybe we should send them a copy or two.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...have evolved them to resemble the ass that he is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Certainly, I would whole-heartedly agree with that throwback to H. erectus and say that oranges are indeed related to humans. Yes, we share many genes with oranges as well as many molecular patterns and motifs. All life, even bacteria, share these. That's what is beautiful about life.

So to say that like it is an outrageous statement and try to make a strawman out of it just shows the true depth of the speaker's ignorance. To echo a poster above, it is entirely possible that his enteric commensal bacteria are more intelligent than he. At least they know when to shut up through quorum sensing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I didn't think I could make it through the video, since the empathetic part of me was about to feel mortified for this guy. Then I noticed he didn't seem like some poor-shlub caricature of a redneck. He had on a suit and tie and was possessed of more arrogance than the standard ignorant hillbilly who didn't have much education and is easy to beat up on. Thus he's fair game.

Yes, oranges and people are genetically related, since a few billion years back we shared a common ancestor. I don't know enough evolutionary biology to know what the last common ancestor was, but my guess would be that it was some unicellular eukaryotic organism whose more complex descendents eventually diverged into the earliest plants and animals. If anyone knows exactly the common ancestral species or type of organism, please tell me.

If the guy had really done so much reading about evolution, he'd understand the concept of common ancestry and appreciate the huge timeframe in which evolution operates, so he could see how an orange and a human are related.

What he's really trying to say, though, is humans are ontologically unique and special, which is a concept derived from religious tradition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"the Florida Family Policy Council, managed to convince the board to insert the caveat. They said they were "vigorously opposed" to the evolution language because it "clashes with their religious convictions or their personal beliefs that evolution has not been proved."

The existance of God hasn't been proved either, therefore Christianity should also be taught as theory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even if they do a virgen the firt night
of their HM,the next morning they will
ask the hotel desk for diappers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one must have faith in evolutuion same as the faith in jesus, both are deluded,an animal does not change into another one given a zillion years. it don't happen, wh yis there still the same trilobites as there were zillion years ago? they didnt change, why not? because they dont change.mutations are usually harmful to a species and a million mutatutions in a monkey doesnt make a human.evolutuion is a religion just as bizarre as all the others, it takes faith to believe in it.because it is a fairy tale popularized by darwin who was a game player in directing the thinking of this current paridigram.which sucks.slime mold with a straw.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one must have faith in evolutuion same as the faith in jesus, both are deluded,an animal does not change into another one given a zillion years. it don't happen, wh yis there still the same trilobites as there were zillion years ago? they didnt change, why not? because they dont change.mutations are usually harmful to a species and a million mutatutions in a monkey doesnt make a human.evolutuion is a religion just as bizarre as all the others, it takes faith to believe in it.because it is a fairy tale popularized by darwin who was a game player in directing the thinking of this current paridigram.which sucks.slime mold with a straw.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two questions for this jester:
1. What is the basic building block of the orange?
2. What is the basic building block of the pet cat?
Answer: DNA.
So, yes, Darwin was right, they are related. But only a moron with no conception of time scale of evolution would posit that a fruit and a mammal are cousins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"clashes with their religious convictions or their personal beliefs that evolution has not been proved."

Sorry folks, but it don't work that way!

Science is based on EVIDENCE, REASON, EXPERIMENTATION, OBSERVATION and outcomes that are REPRODUCABLE.

Religion is based on "faith" - the willing suspension of disbelief - not evidence. You can't have a "personal belief" that evolution hasn't been proved; science has already proven it. You can have a "personal belief" that gravity is "just a theory", but that doesn't mean that you won't be stuck down here on the ground with the rest of us.

I personally think that adding "scientific theory" to the phrase gives evolution even more legitimacy. What would the alternative be? The "religious theory of creation"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that people still believe evolution isn't provable. I just got this in an email yesterday - I don't know who wrote it, so I can't give credit to the author:

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Yup, that's just sooooo much more believable than evolution!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Eivlouion is aganst their beilifes.
Then they belive the world "does not" go around the sun,but stands still.
Then they must belive that bats are "birds".
That bugs have only "four" legs.
That rabbits "chew cuds".
That ,if ( the girl)is not a virgin,on her wedding night ,she is are to be killed by her parents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gravity, yep it is theory, can't wait to hear them emphasize that theory. In America all scientific theories should be afford the same opportunity and emphasis. Only then will students learn what scientific theory means and that these religious wackos are more foolish than coherent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem with teaching the processes of science is that many teachers 1) are teaching in fields for which they are not qualified and 2) do not understand the processes of science (what a hypothesis, theory, and law are, etc.)

I have posted some thoughts on this on my blog - The Processes of Science

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science deals with facts and only facts. Facts inform ALL scientific theory. Since Science can't ever be sure it has all the facts regarding an issue, it can never fully and finally prove any theory, but, to be valid scientifically, a theory must be supported by a preponderance of facts. Science classes then must also deal in a preponderance of facts and only facts.

Science, just as religion, uses conjecture and unproven hypotheses. In Science, however, these are used as a start for gathering facts that scientists hope will prove those hypotheses. A hypothesis is only considered proven (and that only provisionally) when it is supported by a preponderance of facts. Religionists use conjecture and hypotheses AS proof, but can’t go any further. Ironically, their proofs don’t prove anything.

Creationism/Intelligent Design deals with faith and faith is only opinion, no matter how fervently believed. No one person's opinion is more or less valid than another's. When the scientific method is applied to Creationism/Intelligent Design or any articles of faith, few, if any, facts can be called upon. Science classes, therefore have no means of teaching this opinion because it isn’t supported by a preponderance of facts.

Science classes teach and are bound by the rules and methodology of scientific principles. Unsupported opinions are anathema to good scientific principles. Teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design as an alternative theory of the origins of man in a Science class would be akin to teaching Cooking in a Math class. It's out of place. It's inappropriate. It's roots pre-date Science. It's anachronistic. It can't be fit into the curriculum in any sensible way. To do so robs the students of the basic building blocks of adult intelligence.

However, on the Orlando Sentinel site another blogger has suggested what I think might be an interesting compromise: okboston suggested a comparative theories section in the Science curriculum as a means of teaching the principles of scientific methodology. Applying these principles to an examination of the competing “theories” would serve two purposes: One, it would be an excellent way to teach the methodology; and two, it would reveal which one has the preponderance of evidence and which one has none. I would add that comparing the two also would be interesting in a civics class section regarding the Constitutional separation of church and state. What a school that would be.

C/ID is a religious belief. As such, the teaching of it is constitutionally prohibited in public schools. Whatever rationale is used to circumvent that prohibition could also be used to REQUIRE that Evolution be taught in Bible classes and Sunday Schools. Both ways, however, are unconstitutional.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Living in Florida most of my life and hearing all the stories of those "Crazy Floridians", I would hate you to think this is not good news to declare this minute change in teaching. I trust our science teachers are relieved and will properly teach the science of evolution here. Unless they graduated from Regency U.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Science is an empirical philosophy. Bertrand Russell once said that to argue for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.

Creationism and Intelligent Design, therefore, are not science: there is a gulf of difference between pointing out flaws and inconsistencies in a theory versus trying to find evidence to support or promote a particular belief (e.g., the biblical accounts of creation, the existence of God, etc.).

However...

Evolution is mostly speculation. The physical evidence from the past is fragmentary; of the one billion species believed to have existed, 99 percent did not leave fossils.

In the deliberate breeding of species, there are limits to the changes one can make. When pushed beyond a limit, species become sterile and die out or revert to their standard design.

We can induce changes in existing forms via breeding, but cannot generate new complex structures. If this cannot happen by man's conscious efforts, why should it happen by blind natural processes? No satisfactory evolutio