Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Florida House takes up Senate evolution bill
(By David Fischer, The Associated Press, April 25, 2008)

A bill that would ensure teachers are not punished for challenging evolution in the classroom was debated Friday in the Florida House but amended to include more stringent language that would mandate alternate views to evolution be taught.

The Senate passed a bill on Wednesday that would allow teachers to challenge evolution with ``scientific information'' and prohibit school officials from punishing teachers who offer opposing views. The House took up that bill Friday but added an amendment that would actually require teachers to present a ``critical analysis'' of Charles Darwin's scientific theory. That language had been part of a previous House bill on the subject.

House lawmakers have already debated the added language extensively. Opponents say the bill would expose science classes to information that has not necessarily undergone peer review, the process by which scientists evaluate and test each others' work, and invite nonscientific theories in science classes.

``To mix science with faith does damage to both,'' said Rep. Dan Gelber, D- Miami Beach, during Friday's debate.

But supporters say what's being called the ``Evolution Academic Freedom Act'' would simply allow a free exchange of ideas that question as well as support evolution.

Rep. Alan Hayes, R-Umatilla, who sponsored the amendment to add the ``critical analysis'' language said questioning evolution is not the same as teaching religion and people should not be afraid of discussion.

A key issue with the bill is whether it would permit the teaching of creationism and intelligent design, which holds certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an ``intelligent cause.''

Some advocates say intelligent design is ``scientific,'' but a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled it's a religious theory.

A final vote on the bill (SB 2692) should come next week, but because it was amended, it would have to go back to the Senate.

The legislation was filed in response to new science standards adopted in February by the State Board of Education. For the first time they use the word ``evolution'' instead of such terms as ``biological change over time.'' They also require more intense and detailed teaching of the concept.

Supporters of the bill have not shown evidence that any teachers have been disciplined for questioning evolution but have cited anecdotal evidence of science teachers who claim they have been harassed.

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Florida House takes up Senate evolution bill
(By David Fischer, The Associated Press, April 25, 2008)

Supporters of the bill have not shown evidence that any teachers have been disciplined for questioning evolution but have cited anecdotal evidence of science teachers who claim they have been harassed.

Several board members pressed Paredes and other coordinating board staff members Wednesday on whether the institute had been treated differently because of its founding religious beliefs. They were told "no," that the objections to the program had been based upon academic quality.

House lawmakers have already debated the added language extensively. Opponents say the bill would expose science classes to information that has not necessarily undergone peer review, the process by which scientists evaluate and test each others' work, and invite nonscientific theories in science classes.

Blast all schools and schoolbooks! They are making literature loathed.

What happened in the House today
(Brandon Haught, Florida Citizens for Science, April 25th, 2008)

Debate on the anti-evolution bill went on for an hour and a half. There were times when I was cheering and times when I could barely keep myself from punching my computer monitor. I just need to say this and get it out of the way: Rep. Hays is 100% ignorant when it comes to science. Following Hays' own challenge, I will go ahead and throw that statement of mine out there and let you attack it any way you can. The statement will stand up to any "critical analysis." He actually wants science to produce some half insect / half monkey creature. That's what he seriously thinks is a transitional form. Yes, that was one of those almost punch the monitor moments. That and his invitation to everyone to go see the move Expelled.

OK, let's move on to the actual floor action, which started at about 12:04 p.m. The first order of business was Hays asking that the bill approved in the Senate replace his house bill. The motion was approved. This early in the action a shot of the House floor was shown and it looked like a ghost town. There had been a marathon consideration of amendments to the bill before this one, and it looks like everyone decided to take a bathroom and coffee break.

Next up was Hays proposing an amendment that would then take his House bill text and replace all the Senate bill text with it. I have to admit that I just don't get this move. The Senate bill is adopted in the House. OK. Now the Senate bill is completely gutted to be replaced by what was the House bill? I don't understand that. Furthermore, I wonder if that was even a smart move, seeing as how Sen. Storms had tried the same thing in the Senate and that body had shot the House text down. Would someone please educate me on all this?

*************************

Rep. Fitzgerald: This bill is set upon a false premise. Talks about Galileo being forced to recant the idea that the earth goes around the sun. "It still moves," Galileo said. Science is based on reality apart from our knowledge. The evidence is before us. "It still moves." This bill purports that there is a problem in the first place, and there isn't. The problem doesn't exist! There is a mountain of facts explaining evolution. We can see evolution in fruit flies. Understanding evolution led to the discovery of DNA. Genetic research is based on evolution. This bill claims to open analysis, but it in fact closes it. It denies the FACTS! Compare evolution to gravity. You can test gravity by going to the roof. You won't jump off, will you? But evolution is better understood and supported than gravity is. This bill is all about some people of religious faith being offended by what science has discovered. They then try to use the power of the state to impose their thinking on the rest of us. They try to take away the power of the scientific community. This bill is actually a threat on your religious liberties. You should be offended.

Rep. Gelber: I don't even know why this bill is here. This issue already was before the Board of Education. We, the legistlature, have entrusted other bodies, such as the Board of Education, to do this kind of work. The standards allow for critical analysis and have evolution mentioned 42 times in the document. The experts worked on those standards. If you are worried about the teaching of evolution in schools, then you shouldn't want this bill because it will MANDATE its teaching. Let the experts work this out, as they already have. That's what they are there for.

Rep. Kiar: The amendment you all approved makes this terrible bill a little better, but it is still bad public policy.

Rep. Vana: I won't support this bill because it chooses to give evolution special attention. If we are going to attract the best and brightest to our state, we can't have this bill. She then quotes from Nobel Prize winner Dr. Kroto concerning Scripps not coming here if this debate happened a couple of years ago.

***************************
Rep. Altman: Claims that not allowing critical analysis makes it dogma and a religion of its own. Without critical analysis, learning stops.

Rep. Weatherford: If 98 percent of so of scientists are behind evolution, then why are you afraid of this critical analysis?

Rep Kelly: Gelber asked why are we debating this. We are debating this because it is important to the citizens. What are we frightened of? He then reads from the amended bill, putting emphasis on the inclusion of the word scientific. These arguments about religion are nothing more than strawmen. If we wanted to teach religion we could then teach such-n-such from the Bible. Kelly then quotes about three things from the Bible. But we aren't teaching those things. With this theory of evolution, it's impossible to go back in time and replicate our origins. Thus you are forced to make choices and presuppositions.

Rep. Nick Thompson: This bill just presents more information and options for students. It gives them choices.

Rep. Jordan: There is probably truth to everyone's statements here. He then gives a short history lesson about the falsity of separation of church and state.

Rep. Attkisson: We should trust our teachers. This bill allows the minority to have their say and protect them.

Rep. Hays in closing: Points out Rep. Fitzgerald and calls him the personification of why this bill is needed. If you are true scientists, you will put your theories out there to be criticized. Evolution is dogma. It has holes in it. If you think there is no debate in science over evolution, like Fitzgerald claims, then go see Expelled. There are NO transitional fossils. We don't want students to be parrots being told what to think. We want to teach them how to think. Why are you so afraid? This protects freedom of speech. Find for me where a fly turned into a monkey or a monkey turned into a man. This talk about religion is nothing more than hot air.

Hays' amendment then passed on a voice vote and the bill will move to its third reading and final vote next week.

EXCERPTS FROM FLORIDA CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE BLOG:

Quote:

What happened in the House today
(Brandon Haught, Florida Citizens for Science, April 25th, 2008)

Rep. Hays in closing: Points out Rep. Fitzgerald and calls him the personification of why this bill is needed. If you are true scientists, you will put your theories out there to be criticized. Evolution is dogma. It has holes in it. If you think there is no debate in science over evolution, like Fitzgerald claims, then go see Expelled. There are NO transitional fossils.

Some advocates say intelligent design is ``scientific,'' but a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled it's a religious theory.

Spendi has no knowledge or interest in the world's turning. As he said on the UK thread. All he needs is his pints and a tv and his "fags". Now I dont know about that last one but ,Not that theres anything wrong with that.