Gov. Bush [Florida] oddly evasive on evolution

Miami Herald ^ | 09 October 2005 | MARC CAPUTO

[Ichneumon]

[want high school students to understand ``how genetic variation of offspring contributes to population control in an environment and that natural selection ensures that those who are best adapted to their surroundings survive.'']

Wonderful. Make sure every student can parrot that sentence, and hand him his diploma. Yea for government education!

Read more carefully -- it specifies that they learn the *HOW* part.

Nor does it specify that that's *all* you need to learn in order to earn a diploma.

Get a grip.

[Ichneumon]

With all your Evo/ID posts, I wonder what you're so afraid of. Methinks you doth protest too much.

So... You think the only reason someone can have an interest in a topic, and post a lot on threads about it, is out of "fear"?

Bizarre.

[Dimensio]

I have no problem with ID and evolution being equal partners in education

Then you clearly do not understand either issue. Evolution is science. ID is not. It is fundamentally dishonest to present non-science as "equal" to science.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm asking an honest question to you and I'm not a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus."

Methinks you doth protest too much.

[Tax-chick]

Get a sense of humor. They put them on markdown at Wal-mart sometimes.

[Sandy]

general_re? What happened to him? Just a time-out? Hope so. I love his posts.

[Dimensio]

They put them on markdown at Wal-mart sometimes.

I'm very, very tempted to make a crack about Kent Hovind.

[Ichneumon]

Matchett-PI has already had his false statements corrected many times before, so he *knows* they're false when he makes them, but just in case people new to the topic might read his post and mistake his comments for some sort of gospel (*cough*), I think it's important to point out yet again where he is posting outright falsehoods. I've already debunked this sort of thing, oh, several hundred times before, so I'll just list the errors to save time, but if anyone wants any particular item documented or explained, let me know and I'll be glad to do so.

Scientists and teachers ought to make it clear... that evolution and cosmology are working assumptions, not established facts.

False. While they aren't "established facts" (*nothing* in science ever is -- science does not deal in "proofs"), they're far, far more than mere "working assumptions". Modern cosmology has a very large amount of evidence supporting it, and evolution has *enormous* mountains of evidence and 150+ years of research supporting it, so much that it's about as close to an "established fact" as one is likely to find.

Unlike physics, evolution and cosmology are sciences in the sense of forensic science.

Wrong again.

The evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from apelike ancestors is not abundant enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has occurred.

Utter bollocks. The amount of independently cross-confirming evidence for the evolutionary transitiono f humans from apelike ancestors is overwhelming, and has passed the "beyond a reasonable doubt" point decades ago. It has only become even more solidly confirmed since then, with massive amounts of evidence pouring out of the human (and chimpanzee) genome project. Any claim to the contrary is, quite frankly, either the result of gross ignorance or gross dishonesty.

That is why the overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in a Creator.

False dichtomy (and false conclusion) -- the *majority* of Americans who accept evolution are *also* Christians.

The foundation of modern science was laid down by devout Christians (Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, etc.) who studied nature to know more about its Creator.

Irrelevant to any claim Matchett-PI attempts to make here. But it is amusing that he seems to miss the fact that the evidence for evolution and other sciences which extremist creationists now try to reject was so strong that it convinced even the "devout Christians" who developed those sciences.

It was the extension of the evolutionary ideas of Darwin to an atheistic world view that accentuated the false antagonism between science and religion.

Yawn. Not hardly. Fundamentalist sects of religions (including Islam) have been opposing various aspects of science itself for hundreds of years, long before Darwin was even born. Quick, now, what "extension of the evolutionary ideas of Darwin" drove the "antagonism between science and religion" which caused the Church to persecute Galileo for advocating the "false and heretical doctrine" that the Earth went around the Sun instead of vice versa?

Such mixing of science, philosophy, and theology must be openly discussed.

No objection here. Just please don't misrepresent it.

What people object to is the teaching of an atheistic world view in the guise of science.

If you ever find anyone actually doing that, feel free to let me know and I'll object to it too. But don't try to pretend that that's what the anti-evolution crusaders are actually objecting to. They're objecting to the teaching of the *science* itself.

Students of faith ought not to come out of biology classes with the notion that there is no God.

They ought not to be *taught* that. But if they arrive at that conclusion on their own (*or* its opposite), who are you to decree otherwise, or go on some sort of jihad about it?

Otherwise, theology and not merely biology is being taught in such classes.

Wrong again. It's not "teaching theology" to teach non-religious that might possibly affect someone's religious views. If your faith is so weak that learning more about how the world works causes your faith to suffer, well...

Clearly everything evolves. However, it is not self-evident to me that the fundamental question of origins is a truly scientific question.

Oddly enough, reality is not dependent upon what you yourself happen to find "self-evident".

If not, then the answer must be sought in the very same places where we seek answers to questions regarding meaning, values, and purpose.

Feel free to seek it there as well, but don't try to decide for everyone else where it "must" be sought, or limit such searches to the *ONE* place *you* think might be fruitful.

One must never forget that an explanation of the totality of the human experience may lie outside the realm of science.

Very true. Or it may not.

The honest pursuit of an answer to the question of origins may lead ultimately to an Intelligent Designer.

Or may lead to the opposite conclusion. But according to you, that would magically become "teaching theology". Hmm..

[Ichneumon]

general_re? What happened to him? Just a time-out?

He's taking a leave for unspecified personal reasons. He hasn't indicated if he'll be back, sad to say.

[Ichneumon]

Get a sense of humor.

I have one. But it takes material that is minimally humorous to activate it.

[Sandy]

Okay, thanks.

[2ndreconmarine]

Unlike physics, evolution and cosmology are sciences in the sense of forensic science.

Oh, goody. Now we are going to argue about the atheist cosmologists.

BTW, cosmology is based on physics. Indeed, it is essentially entirely physics. It is part of most physics departments and it is certainly a major part of the physics department of any major university.

[Tax-chick]

Eye of the beholder, and all that.

[js1138]

I have no problem with ID and evolution being equal partners in education.

Are you thinking that ID does not accept evolution? If so you'd be wrong. ID accepts the historic fact of common descent, just not natural selection as the only source of change.

[shuckmaster]

Such mixing of science, philosophy, and theology must be openly discussed. That's fine for philosophy and theology class. Students looking for a career in science need to be studying science without the philosophical and theological baggage.

[Ichneumon]

I have no problem with ID and evolution being equal partners in education.

I do -- why would you want to give students such a false impression? They very much are *NOT* equal disciplines. "ID: isn't even a science, and has, last time I checked, no evidence supporting it (note: Alleged evidence against evolution is in no way positive support *for* ID.)

Actually, as a thinking human being, I don't think one can separate the two.

How do you figure that?

So, what's your intense interest in the subject?

Evolution is under heavy attack by creationists/IDers, so someone has to step up to defend it from the propaganda and lawsuits.

I'm asking an honest question to you and I'm not a troll, crackpot, half-wit, or incurable ignoramus.

And you've got an honest answer. A more detailed description of the situation can be found in this post of mine in response to a similar question.

[Junior]

He's on sabbatical.

[Matchett-PI]

"...But according to you, that would ..."

Ahhhhhhh ... you were quoting Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics University of North Carolina at Wilmington and attributing them to me throughout. LOL

"Matchett-PI has already had his false statements corrected many times before, so he *knows* they're false when he makes them, but just in case people new to the topic might read his post and mistake his comments for some sort of gospel (*cough*), I think it's important to point out yet again where he is posting outright falsehoods..."

Are you going to attempt to debunk my theory on the evolution of makeup AGAIN??? Hahahaha

[b_sharp]

ID accepts what it has to to appear science based.

[Matchett-PI]

Ahhhhh... did you happen to notice who you were quoting? LOL