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.

[MacDorcha]

"If a theory does not posses this property then the scientific method is not applicable and it therefore falls outside the scope of science. "

Same is said of observations, is it not?

The Big Bang theory is just a wet dream for Stephen Hawking. Given what we are finding out about the Universe, I would say this theory will abandoned and re-adapted roughly 6 more times before we figure it out.

Why does the Big Bang get a foot-note, and evolution get entire chapters to it? We know next to moot about it being "true" or not. Just like gravity or black holes.

Save evolution for biology and black holes for astro-physics.

[rmmcdaniell]

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.

Does this apply to just the biological sciences or all disciplines? This is going to be hilarious when the muslims sue the law schools for failing to respect Sharia.

For a state of its size, Florida universities already have dismal reputation in the realm of biological sciences. This is just going to make it worse.

[Avenger]

Conversly, we cannot witness a species changing from one phenotype to another. Where's the "observation" in that? Evolution is also, NOT scientific. At least, if ID isn't.

---

Wrong. This just means that the theory of evolution as it stands is not correct. The very fact you can use observables in the world to refute it is exactly why it is a scientific theory (albeit an imperfect one) and therefore belongs in a science class. There is no scientific theory that is perfect - always an approximation. Newton's theory of gravity worked quite well for hundreds of years until Einstein came along and found some small corrections that made it more precise. Does that mean that Newton's theory of gravitation did not deserve to be taught as science classes from 1679 to 1915? Doubtlessly there will be further corrections to the theory of gravitation as time goes on. This is how science works. If we demanded perfection from our scientific theories there would be no progress at all. The value of a scientific theory lies in its ability to enable us to make predictions about the world. This is the same property that allows us to refute scientific theories and/or improve them. Articles of faith such as intelligent design do not posses such properties and therefore have no place in science classes.

[Quick1]

Predict something with evolution. Go ahead.

From here:

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

* Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

* Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

* Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Even in a lab setting, we have not witnessed one species change into another.

False. From here:

New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

* A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

[MacDorcha]

"Personally, I am partial to the idea of intelligent design, but this is a matter of faith, not science and therefore does not belong in a science class."

"Personally, I am partial to the idea of (evolution), but this is a matter of faith, not science and therefore does not belong in a science class."

Now, does that sentence still fit? It does to me. Beliefe in "nothing" causing different lifeforms takes the same faith as believing in "something" causing different lifeforms.

Only difference is the "something" to believe in. If "evolution" made the species all by itself, isn't that faith in an un-observable force?

[Quick1]

I still eagerly await your evidence as to exactly what ID is used to predict, or even how it is falsifiable.

[concerned about politics]

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.
I read up on Socialism (know thy enemy). I read where the socialist heard of this legend, and it was the perfect propaganda to turn government into God, and a perfect way to eliminate God from the human conciseness.

BTW, a question for you. If a comet destroyed everything on earth and created the ice age, how did all the new creations....er.....primordial ooze blobs, show up out of no where? How did they get to be completely new creatures from primordial ooze that fast, and how did those elements just happen to come together in perfect order for the second time and turn out so perfectly complicated by accident - again?

The DNA results were all over Christian news and publications, but we not discussed anywhere else in the media. It was a private test, and the results were not publicly published because no one but the Christians would do it. I guess "science" didn't think it was important. I caught the report on Christian TV.

[Quick1]

Sure. Look it up.

No thanks. Feel free to provide evidence, but until then I'll continue assuming that you made it all up.

[Avenger]

"Personally, I am partial to the idea of intelligent design, but this is a matter of faith, not science and therefore does not belong in a science class."

"Personally, I am partial to the idea of (evolution), but this is a matter of faith, not science and therefore does not belong in a science class."

Now, does that sentence still fit? It does to me. Beliefe in "nothing" causing different lifeforms takes the same faith as believing in "something" causing different lifeforms.

---

You don't get it. In absolute terms any scientific theory is false because it is an approximation. Any theory of evolution (or gravity, light, etc.) in existence now or at any time in the future is ultimately false because they are all necessarily approximations. Nevertheless, what makes these theories scientific is the fact that they can be used to make prediction (right, wrong, or close to the mark) and those predictions can be tested enabling us to refute parts of the theory and/or improve the theory thereby getting better predictions. Evolution, whether it is true or false or a poor and partial approximation, is a scientific theory because it is susceptible to the methods of science; the issue of intelligent design - whether pro or con - is not.

[SedVictaCatoni]

If a comet destroyed everything on earth and created the ice age

Refresh my memory. Was this before or after Godzilla and Teddy Roosevelt slew Paul Bunyan and caused the Civil War?

[concerned about politics]

No thanks. Feel free to provide evidence, but until then I'll continue assuming that you made it all up.

And I'll assume you really don't want to know due to your evolutionary faith.

[Avenger]

"Sure. Look it up. My daughter likes Chinese stuff."

That's good because I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more "Chinese stuff" if enough Americans are willing to let science education fall by the wayside in a sad attempt to prop up their religious faiths. In my opinion, this debate on the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science education bodes ill for both the scientific and spiritual vitality of the U.S.

[MacDorcha]

"That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000)."

Ah, yes... where did caucasians come in? How on earth did those Chinese get way over there before they invented/discovered the wheel?

Saying we're all from africa is laughable.


"* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000)."

"What is 'adaptation'?" Correct for 200.


"* Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003)."

If the predator "evolves" it stops being the same predator. Same with the prey. Again, "What is 'adaptation'?"


"* Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003)."

Yet we still hold no "Species A-> Species B" examples as observation.


"* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003)."

So they found a dead lizard (sans-bones) in a valley. Was this searching of the valley directed by the authors? Why did these Haikuoella die out? Where are there ancestors?

Why does Chen argue the Haikuoella could be in fact a craniate, and not an ancestor there-of?


"* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982). "

Ah, using trees to explain that things that look alike are built alike. This does not make them related. It makes the similar.

Nothing new here I'm afraid.



"*A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998)."

A new species... but it can still mate with the old one. ::yawn:: are you even trying? It's named for it's behavior, in both cases. They can mate with each other. They are the same, excepting habit. May as well tell me about the finches some more.



"* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991)."

The closest you got to legit. A virus introduced its own DNA into her cells. This mutation was not an "evolution" of a human, but the immortality of her compromised cells. Thats like saying "AIDs contractors have evolved into NOT having an immune system."

Though interesting, this story is not "earth breaking"


"* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929). "

I believe I read that one long ago. Didn't they have to, in fact, combine two different species to make a new one? (I will admit, it was then able to reproduce, which is a plus... but it still required TWO to get ONE. This wasn't a case of one species evolving.)




Keep trying. I think I feel an extra eye coming on... But the deal is still a thumb, so I guess you can keep going.

[MacDorcha]

Didn't say ID WAS used to predict. I said it was in the same boat as evolution. Shame on you for assuming.

Oh wait, you're an Evolutionist. Assuming is your bread and butter.

[concerned about politics]

Refresh my memory. Was this before or after Godzilla and Teddy Roosevelt slew Paul Bunyan and caused the Civil War?

According to the Bible the earth was null and void when God created man. He shows up on the scene right after the ice age.
The evolutionary fairy tale somehow produces creatures out of ice sculptures or something after that. LOL.
You'll have to speak to them about that junk. All I teach now is creationism to home schoolers. Evolution has way too many holes in it's theories for me to teach it to children.

[MacDorcha]

Hmmm.... I think I see your point.

First evo to take the time to try to explain it.

Of course, considering you are an IDest, wuoldn't venture into it being TO big a suprise. After all, we're both reasonable here.

Sound arguement, but I still hold that evolution (as gravity) needs to be a sidenote (as does ID) in basic science classes.

In biology, anthropology, physics, astro-physics classes... fire away! That's the focus of those classes.

[Triggerhippie]

Predict something with evolution. Go ahead. From here: Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example: * Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

And disputed by plenty of other experts... As to the new species thing, have any of your examples been repeated in a lab or are they just observations thus not re-creatable?

[balch3]

Taking back America-Darwinism on the run Bump!

[Avenger]

"Evolution has way too many holes in it's theories for me to teach it to children."

The real world is a complicated place - best not to confuse the little ones with science where things are uncertain, approximate or incomplete. And who needs Newton or Einstien? Their theories are too complicated and full of holes anyways. In any case, once our adversaries have overtaken us technologically we can just resort to throwing Bibles at them - that'll show 'em.

[MacDorcha]

Actually, he's right.

My girlfriend's family is Chinese/Vietnamese.

They've got similar stories to that.

It more than stands to reason that this was used by the communists to throw out "God" in China.

Also, your refusing to "look it up" as CAP suggested tells myself and others that you are unwilling to go out and learn for yourself. You're spoon-fed this information.