Posted on 11/30/2007 5:35:47 AM PST by Sopater
The committee has spoken. Now it’s the Florida public’s turn—and, when it comes to evolution, there’s a lot to say.
The state’s first revision of its public school science standards in a decade is now up for public comment. For the first time, the draft standards refer explicitly to evolution and, adhering to scientific consensus, describe the theory as a “big idea,” crucial to students’ understanding of the natural world.
In an attempt to make the process as open as possible, officials are encouraging people to submit comments online, until mid-December, through the state education department’s Web page.
Floridians appear to be seizing the opportunity. As of last week, an estimated 3,000 people had weighed in online. (The Web site is http://etc.usf.edu/flstandards/ index.html). Public hearings are scheduled for this month.
Using the Internet to take public comments on proposed academic standards and other policies has become a popular option for state and local education officials in recent years. Kansas—which was at the center of a heavily publicized controversy over the teaching of evolution in 2005—collected some comments online during that debate, as did Ohio when it revised its science standards in 2002.
Policymakers see the online option as a relatively orderly way of gauging public sentiment, particularly on contentious issues.
And as states expand online options, the process for collecting comments has become more elaborate.
In Florida, for instance, online visitors can rank each individual benchmark, or topic area within the science standards, with options ranging from “strongly agree” to “neutral” to “strongly disagree.” They also can type in written comments for each one.
“We were charged to develop world-class [science] standards, and we felt that getting public input would be a large part of our success,” said Mary Jane Tappen, the executive director of the Florida Department of Education’s office of mathematics and science. She said the online process was important in “getting information out that’s factual, rather than just rumors.”
The current version of the Florida science standards, drafted in 1996, spells out what students are expected to know in science at various grade levels, as is the case in other states. The standards can guide teachers in organizing lessons and in planning for the state’s science test, Ms. Tappen said.
The process of revising academic standards has become major news in some states in recent years, with much of the attention focused on those documents’ treatment of the theory of evolution.
Kansas’ state board of education, which has switched back and forth on teaching evolution depending on which voting bloc has had the upper hand, approved standards in 2005 that described different pieces of evolutionary theory as controversial. That decision appalled scientists, who regard the theory of evolution as the most credible explanation for the development of humans and other living things. ("Evolution Loses and Wins, All in One Day," Nov. 16, 2005.)
This year, a new Kansas board majority repealed the 2005 policy.
Florida’s science standards have also drawn scorn in recent years. The current version of the document does not even mention the term “evolution.” A 2005 review by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington think tank that has conducted numerous reviews of states’ academic standards in recent years, faulted the state for that omission, and referred to the overall document as “seriously flawed.” The new Florida standards were crafted by a committee of about 60 K-12, college, and business officials, as well as members of the general public, who volunteered or were recommended to the state.
Committee members examined a number of national and international documents in their work, including the blueprints used for crafting the science tests for the federally sponsored National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the Program for International Assessment, or PISA, a prominent international exam.
The newly proposed Florida standards demand that students understand many aspects of evolution, including how evidence for evolution appears in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, and other areas; how humans evolved from early ancestors over millions of years; and how evolution is guided by natural selection.
Brian McClain, a high school biology teacher and a member of the committee, said he heard a few of its members suggest presenting a more critical view of evolution in the standards. But the consensus was that doing so would undermine the document’s scientific legitimacy, he said.
Not discussing evolution “would be comparable to teaching earth science without talking about plate tectonics, or chemistry without the periodic table,” said Mr. McClain, who teaches at Amos P. Godby High School, in Tallahassee. “It just has to be there.”
The Florida committee will be expected to review the public comments, though it is not obligated to change them based on that input, Ms. Tappen said. The standards will then be sent to the state board of education—all of whose seven members are appointed by the state’s governor—for consideration, probably early next year, she said.
The Florida draft standards’ unflinching description of evolution is encouraging, said Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland, Calif., organization that advocates teaching the topic. But he also predicted opposition.
“I expect to see some of kind of organized effort [by opponents] to deprecate the standards,” Mr. Branch said, citing recent state and local battles over evolution.
In an early count of online comments submitted so far, a majority agreed with how evolution was presented in individual benchmarks. But the responses also reveal sharp divisions.
“Excellent benchmark,” one commenter wrote of a benchmark about evidence for evolution.
“Do some research of creation science,” another countered. “Evolution ‘facts’ have been disproven.”
Federal, state, and local governments routinely allow public comment on policies and regulations, and in some cases, are required to do so by law. As the use of the Internet has grown, more state and local governments have set up systems to gather such views online.
“The advantage is, it’s anytime, anywhere,” said Mary Ann Wolf, the executive director of the State Educational Technology Directors Association, a professional and advocacy organization with staff members nationwide.
While comments collected online do not always accurately reflect public sentiment—advocates can flood sites with their views—more state and local education officials see it as a way to increase public involvement, noted Ms. Wolf.
In Ohio, officials collected online comments during the state’s revision of its science standards in 2002, when the topic of evolution was debated, and it uses that process for other academic standards, said Stan W. Heffner, an associate superintendent for curriculum and assessment with the state education department there.
He said online comments prove valuable, particularly in science, because many public concerns center on arcane questions such as the correct order of scientific topics in the curriculum.
“There are some really esoteric debates,” Mr. Heffner said, adding that “you want to know why people think what they think.”
Florida officials are accepting public comments on proposed revisions to the state’s science standards at http://etc.usf.edu/flstandards/index.html. Online comments for two of the proposed benchmarks include:
BENCHMARK: Explain how evolution is demonstrated by the fossil record, extinction, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, biogeography, molecular biology (crosscuts with earth/space), and observed evolutionary change.
COMMENTS:
“Allow the teacher to present, and the students to be informed about, ALL the evidence regarding evolution, both positive and negative.”
“[I]t is clear that you’re proposing to teach evolution as a fact. It’s nothing more than [a] hypothesis and should be taught as such along with the strong scientific arguments against its validity.”
“[W]hat is meant by evolution? If evolution means change over time, the fossil record clearly demonstrates that. If evolution means that all of life’s diversity and complexity are the result of random processes culled by natural selection, none of the categories listed demonstrates that directly.”
BENCHMARK: Identify basic trends in hominid evolution from early ancestors 6 million years ago to modern humans.
COMMENTS:
“Helps understand the place of man in nature and our relationships.”
“The so-called scientific explanations are based on faith. Let's stop teaching this religion in our schools.”
“[T]his will be attacked—stick to your guns and keep it in there.”
So you like the philosophy that sodomites are a natural occurrence, a liberal re-write of history is taught in history class, and that you son/daughter needs lessons in cucumber condom fitting? I’d rather see those 3 dropped and ID introduced if nothing else at least as an alternative theory.
The refusal to discuss the gaps and deficiencies of the evolutionary theory
just supports the idea that evolution is the atheists’ justification for the denial of God, objective morality, and a hard definition of right and wrong.
Yeah, everything in the universe shows a tendency to organize into more complex structures and entities. That whole entropy thing is over rated. /sarc
It does not have to be an in depth exposure just an alternative theory, but since you asked, I think a generic Judeo-Christian viewpoint should be taught since it coincides with the principles so many here hold dear and that are found in our constitution.
I don’t give a crap is Hinduism, Darwinism, or whatever beliefs are taught you want that go to India or elsewhere. It is time that our country return to its roots and remember who founded us, Christians. If learning a Judeo-Christian theory offends you then either move out of country or opt your child out.
Evolution by many definitions is a religion ( just like global warming ) and thus should not be taught under our current PC regulations.
The entire id/creationist argument can be summed up as, "It's too complex. We don't understand it. Therefore God made it this way."
Nuff said.
You don't understand what entropy is. Have you studied physics? If not then you had better stop embarrassing yourself. Think for 10 seconds on why your argument is absolutely absurd. Look at the real world if necessary.
How about Michael Behe for starters?
Don't like Behe? Here's a quote from Coyne and Orr's Speciation:
So begins The Origin of Species, whose title and first paragraph imply that Darwin will have much to say about speciation. Yet his magnum opus remains largely silent on the "mystery of mysteries," and the little it does say about this mystery is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled or wrong.To be sure Coyne and Orr believe in something they call "evolution," but they don't seem to think much of Darwin. They might not see this as a contradiction, but perhaps you can understand why others might view it this way.
BTW, I was the one who asked you a question about that which you seem so sure of. I notice that you chose not to answer it.
ML/NJ
Ditto post #12, spot-on analysis.
jw
This is about science. Not belief. You prove things in science. You study evidence and if possible make experiments and predictions.
You believe in the Bible (contradictions and all) or you don't.
Did you miss the /sarc tag?
My argument is that it IS absurd that someone is arguing that the “natural” tendency is to organize into more complex structures.
“The refusal to discuss the gaps and deficiencies of the evolutionary theory”
This is an outright falsehood. Evolution is constantly under reconsideration by the very definition of a scientific theory. A lot of geneticists and the like would be out of work if it wasn’t.
The problem is that Intelligent Design doesn’t answer any of those questions scientifically. Because, well, it isn’t science. I mean, not even by a stretch.
I hate that this stupid crusade for a laughable ‘theory’ is obscuring more serious and important relgion & schools problems like prayer and parental consent for a whole host of things. What a waste of time.
If those creatures were a closed system then that would be true. They are not. There is nothing unnatural about small parts of a system with decreasing entropy while the net entropy of the system increases. Take for example, rain.
Prove that I came from monkeys that came from whatever that came from slime that came from nothing, you cannot and no one has to date. A great many assumptions are made in so called laws like grabbing constants to make formulas work or assuming something existed before something else when you have no proof. There are a great many gaps in the genus/family/species and the incompatibility to interbreed outside related species demonstrates no direct lineage.
You can make the relative DNA structure argument but if I have a cake and a vegetable quiche they both have eggs and milk but are not from each other.
BTW, I was the one who asked you a question about that which you seem so sure of. I notice that you chose not to answer it.
Your question wasn't actually addressed to me. You have me confused with somebody else.
Michael Behe? Do you really want to hang your hat on Behe? Okay - but be warned, he accepts the theory of a common ancestor. That's a major underpinning of evolution, and the one most evolutionists object to. He has a problem with natural selection, but not common descent. In other words, he doesn't dispute that evolution happened and continues to happen, only that it happens for the reasons Darwin articulated.
Whatever Coyne and Orr might think of Darwin himself isn't terribly relevant, if you admit that they accept the basics of the theory. There's no contradiction at all, unless you find loving Paul Gauguin's paintings means you have to endorse his abandonment of his family.
If that were true, the theory would not have to be continually revised in light of new evidence.There is no scientific evidence supporting id/creationism.
To state this, you have to ignore the fact that all known systems containing order and information were created by intelligence. The only system containing order and information that was not created by a known intelligence is that of life. It is by scientific deduction that one can claim that life was created by an intelligent being.The entire id/creationist argument can be summed up as, "It's too complex. We don't understand it. Therefore God made it this way."
Here you clearly state that you truly do not understand the ID/creation argument, therefore you are not capable of summing it up. Thanks for trying.Nuff said.
And should the Flying Spaghetti Monster be taught as one of the alternatives to evolution?
I'm sure you understand the logic of this supposed analogy, but I do not.
Perhaps you could tell me whether you believe in Darwinian Evolution.
ML/NJ
And you draw the line where? Should math classes be forced to teach the Biblical value of Pi along with the mathematical value of Pi? Should we teach Astrology as a reason why people experience good fortune? Alchemy as an alternative to geology? At the end of the day I believe you should teach the science and not the theology or the myth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.