Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs [suing profs who teach evolution!]

Florida Alligator ^ | March 23, 2005 | JAMES VANLANDINGHAM

[Quick1]

TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.

The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.

The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.

While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”

The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.

According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.

Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.

“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.

[section9]

My wife is a teacher, so I confess to being biased. Meantime, the present system of revenue raising with partial reliance on state lottery and Indian gaming is a huge, huge scam-a tax on people who have a limited understanding of mathematics.

This state has potential, but it will take a "Nixon going to China" Republican to actually lead the movement to actually create a consensus for increasing taxes for educational funding. A Democrat simply won't do it. All a Dhimmi will do is simply raise the taxes, then pay off their interest groups in swag.

Happens all the time.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[wyattearp]

Creationism is referred to as a "theory", but so is evolution.

Creationism is referred to as a "theory", but only by people that don't understand the word "theory". Creationism is neither testable, nor falsifiable, and as such it is not a theory. It is a belief.

Somehow, they want us to believe an ape creature can change it's entire cerebral and spinal column from that of an ape to that of a bear...

BWAHAHAHA! I have to stop at this point! Gotta wipe the coffee off of my screen!

[wyattearp]

Creationism does not belong because it is not a scientific theory.

"Intelligent design is...

Gotta stop you there. No, Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is no more testable than Creationism, and is therefore not a theory. It is a belief. Period.

Ever wonder why they've never done a DNA test on the evolved man skeletons? Well, they have. They're not human.

They have done DNA testing on 'evolved man skeletons', and we are definitely related, as far back as we can test. Since your terminology is a bit obscure, I am assuming that you are referring to the lack of DNA testing done on fossilized bone. You can't do DNA testing on a fossil. Fossils are bones that have turned to stone (in a manner of speaking). There is no DNA left to test.

[Modernman]

When/how did the Chinese get there? Why are they SO different (physically) from the other races?

Any physical differences are quite superficial.

Why are caucasians the only ones capable of getting red hair genetically?

Every human can be red-haired. It's just a question of what genes they happen to have. Genetically, there is nothing preventing an Asian or African person from having red hair. It's just that the gene for red-hair hasn't really made its way into those segments of humanity.

If we all came from africa, wouldn't red hair be possible in all the races? Surely there are mild climates in Africa and India that would allow for lighter colorign of people.

One theory is that red hair is due to Neanderthal genes. Europeans would have been the only people to cross-breed with Neanderthals, so the gene for red-hair would only appear in the Caucasian sub-group of humans.

This theory is pretty controversial, however.

[wyattearp]

Sure. Look it up. My daughter likes Chinese stuff. Remember to be through, though. The story changes depending on what part of China you're reading up on.

While you are at it, I suggest that you re-read Genesis. There are TWO creation stories in there, and they are contradictory.

[MacDorcha]

"I think this is one of the challenges of the debate - the topic is a big, complex one and few of us have the time to skim, let alone read deeply and absorb, everything required."

It's the same approach taken for quantum physics and other less "solid" science. I think it's a good solution.

Give a nod to the notion of evolution, and get on with the studies.

[longshadow]

But if this (or something like it) becomes law in Florida, we may expect all kinds of litigation about the alleged freedom of students to demand that various fringe concepts be treated with "respect" by their professors.

The proposed law is a thinly veiled threat that students can use to slack off in class and then demand a decent grade. All the student need do is mouth off a few beliefs that are at odds with what the professor is teaching, and then at the end of the semester there will be an unspoken threat that if the slacker doesn't get a decent grade, the prof will be dragged into court and accused of "disrespecting" the student's fringe beliefs.

This law will do the exact opposite of what it is nominally intended to do; it will cast a chill over the classroom, and no professor will dare discuss things that have the faintest chance of "offending" some student's fringe beliefs.

Imagine, for example, a professor teaching a math course, in which a student suddenly jumps up and interrupts the class to announce that "imaginary numbers are the work of Satan." And repeats this behavior during the course of the semester. Naturally, the student refuses to do any homework or test problems involving complex variables. At the end of the semester, what is the professor supposed to do with regard to this student's grade? Flunk him for failure to do the work, or pass him in order to avoid being fodder for a court case against himself?

The solution to tyrannical professors lies in the market place, not the legislature: don't matriclate to schools where tyrannical professors hold sway, and if you do, transfer out.

[MacDorcha]

"Any physical differences are quite superficial. "

Thinner hair didn't help them in a warmer, wetter environment like the Yellow River?

There is more here than simply that. I just know there is. If we all came from Africa, why the lack in diverse appearances? Why don't some african look Indian? Why don't Afrian and Chinese skeletons look like either was in the other's region at the key times?

[wyattearp]

According to the Bible the earth was null and void when God created man.

Wow. You really, really need to read the bible if you are going to use it in an argument. Here's a refresher:

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

[5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

[7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

[8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

[9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

[10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

[11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

[12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[13] And the evening and the morning were the third day.

[14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

[15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

[20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

[21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

[23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

[25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

As you can see, the bible says that man wasn't created until after everything else was created (at least in Genesis 1). According to the bible, the earth was "null and void" (your words - wrong - but your words nonetheless) when he began, and then he began populating it. I don't see anything in there about a comet.

[wyattearp]

If you're scared of a TRUE fundamentalist Christian, then I have nothing to offer.

Not to be confused with all of those FALSE fundamentalist Christians, of course. Who decides which Christians are TRUE fundamentalists and which ones are FALSE, anyways? You?

[MacDorcha]

Keep in mind, this is the first draft.

[Right Wing Professor]

Net they will pass a bill stating that pi is 3.14.

You're an optimist. Last time the Biblical literalists took a crack at it (in the Indiana legislature) they had pi rounded down to three.

[wyattearp]

And now, the fundamentalists believe they can push their agendas through legislatures. I figure there'll be a lot more of these abominable measures put before our representatives before it's all over.

The problem with this is that when it is all over, the Democrats will be in power for another generation.

[MacDorcha]

I don't, but I can promise that a member of the KKK will claim to be a follower of God.

It's fairly easy to figure out who is of God and who is falling for the falsehoods warned against in Revelation.

If you fear a "fundamentalist" Christian, you have issues.

If you fear a "radical" or "false" Christian, you're sane and have a good grip on reality.

I merely emphasized "TRUE" to drive the point home that it's obvious to those who read the Word who is following the Word and who is simply perverting it.

In other words, I do not decide who is true or not. He and His Word do that.

[js1138]

I am not being unkind, just saying what I always say. If you want to argue agains a position, you must be able to state the best case for the opposing position, not a cartoon version of it.

I have no idea what your state of knowledge is, but I have several years experience viewing the state of argument.

I stand by my claim. Most posters who oppose evolution have no knowledge of the history of science. The are unaware that the ID argument is several hundred years old and was the default position of science for most of the 19th century. It was specifically what Darwin was arguing about.

Most evolution posters are unaware that for 80 years after Darwin published, most biologists accepted that evolution had happened, but opposed Darwin on natural selection. The arguments made during those 80 years are identical to arguments being made today.

Most anti-evolution posters are unaware that these alternate theories were hotly debated by mainstream science until as recently as the 1980s. They were thoroughly investigated, and remnants of them are still being investigated by mainstream science.

Most anti-evolution posters seem to believe there is a conspiracy to cover up areas of biology where things are unknown, and to put certain lines of investigation off limits. But it is mainstream biology that has discovered these areas of uncertainty, and it is mainstream biology that investigates them.

So if you wish to be off the list for my unkind remarks, be careful to argue against real science and not some cartoon version.

[narby]

This has the ability to do serious damage to Republicans. Creationism is a cancer on the Conservative cause.

My mom always told that politicians as a class aren't very smart.

[MacDorcha]

All I ask is that the "unknown" is brought up more often. If the arguments against evolution and not evolution itself were addressed more readily, I doubt the "ignorance" would be an issue. Show us more about science not blindly accepting evolution, and I bet many of the IDists and Crevos would stop bitching, and start discussing.

I don't hold personally that there is any kind of "conspiracy" though I do hold that many evos are elitists.