Anti-Science School Boards in Florida

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
...The standards can be found here:
Review FL Science Standards

Take a look at "Big Idea 7" on page 55: "The scientific theory of the evolution of Earth..."

The evolution of Earth? Hmmm... This comes up again in Standard 7. I don't know that it's wrong, but I've never seen the term applied that way before. Otherwise, I think I'm OK with the use of the term.

Yes, that might be an unfortunate use of the term if it is confused with biological evolution. Especially since laymen are usually tricked by Creationists to conflate the Theory of Evolution with the origin of the Universe. But evolution with a small "e" just means change, so it is not really a bad choice of words. The Earth surely evolved, but not by random mutation and natural selection.

I loved the section in the third grade which is headlined with:



BIG IDEA 3: The Role of Theories, Laws, Hypotheses, and Models
[FONT=Arial,Arial]The terms that describe examples of scientific knowledge, for example; "theory," "law," "hypothesis," and "model" have very specific meanings and functions within science. [/FONT]



Yes, that's what we be talking about! This is a big deficiency in American science education, it seems. I hope they develop good material do this.




 

Meniscus

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
3,434
Media
0
Likes
1,946
Points
333
Location
Massachusetts, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I loved the section in the third grade which is headlined with:



BIG IDEA 3: The Role of Theories, Laws, Hypotheses, and Models
[FONT=Arial,Arial]The terms that describe examples of scientific knowledge, for example; "theory," "law," "hypothesis," and "model" have very specific meanings and functions within science. [/FONT]


Yes, that's what we be talking about! This is a big deficiency in American science education, it seems. I hope they develop good material do this.​

If you like that, jump forward to the standards for Grades 9-12 on page 77 where they actually get into the differences between theories and laws. However, I will mention that my scientist colleague was concerned about some inaccuracies in the language here. I only overheard the tail end of his conversation with someone else, so I'm not sure the exact nature of his concern.

By the way, if anyone watches the video of the Florida State Board of Education meeting, they don't start talking about the science standards until about 37 min. into the meeting, and then the Chair spends several minutes introducing the topic. The first comments on the issue start at about 44 minutes into the meeting.​
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
[/center]

If you like that, jump forward to the standards for Grades 9-12 on page 77 where they actually get into the differences between theories and laws. However, I will mention that my scientist colleague was concerned about some inaccuracies in the language here. I only overheard the tail end of his conversation with someone else, so I'm not sure the exact nature of his concern.​


...​

I found that section to be extremely well worded, except for one thing. It talks about "agreement among scientists" in a way that suggests that a theory is accepted because a lot of scientists agree with it. That is not quite true, if that is what they mean. A theory is accepted when a majority of scientists in the field where the theory applies agree that the evidence is genuine, and that the theory fits more of the evidence than any other theory. It is more objective than just "believing" that it is true.

In fact, most modern theories are pretty much unbelievable (Continents moving, time slowing down when you go fast, etc). And furthermore, many scientists accept theories that they almost detest, because they do explain more of the evidence, but they are very unsatisfying. A good example of that is Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein's work was responsible for briinging about Quantum Mechanics and he accepted it as superior to classical physics, but hated it, because he didn't like the fact that it formally rejects causality. It is also pretty messy at times, so a lot of scientists who use it every day very successfully would love to replace it with a better theory.

I would like to hear what your science colleague objected to in that section you mentioned.
 

Meniscus

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
3,434
Media
0
Likes
1,946
Points
333
Location
Massachusetts, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I've watched most of the Board meeting, including both the public comment on the proposed revisions to the standards and the Board's debate. It's clear that most of the Board members do not understand the issues and have the same lack of knowledge about the difference between fact, theory, and law that was discussed at length earlier in this thread. For example, one of the Board members spoke about how evolution hasn't been proven and that it's a theory and "not a law."

Another Board member, who touted her credentials as a biochemistry major at "the top one or two academic institutions in the country," also didn't seem to understand the proper use of the terms, arguing that evolution was a theory and "not a fact."

One of the Board members, Roberto Martinez, who argued strongly for adopting the standard as originally written, made a funny comment about how the standards evolved over a long period of time, but the optional revisions (which were proposed in response to the controversy about the inclusion of evolution in the standards) were created in seven days. He argued quite eloquently, as did Rep. Dan Gelber from the Florida State Legislature, that the Board should respect the process by which the standards were developed, and not adopt last-minute revisions that were politically motivated, that haven't gone through the extensive review process, and that were not endorsed by the drafters, by the National Academy of Science, nor by any other major scientific organization. I share this view, and I agree with Mr. Martinez's position that the Board members, who are not scientists, should not second guess the panel of scientific experts who were assigned the task of drafting the standards and revise the standards based on their own inexpert understanding of the topic.
 

Meniscus

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
3,434
Media
0
Likes
1,946
Points
333
Location
Massachusetts, United States of America
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
School Board: "Good point. Should we put a section in the curriculum that requires students to 'critically evaluate' Evolution in the light of evidence from Transitional Fossils?"

Creationist: "Oh yes, put that in there!"

Interestingly, several people asked for an "Academic Freedom" amendment to the standards allowing teachers "to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence," but the concern about that language is that the intent behind it is to open the door for teachers to say, "the theory of evoluation has a lot of flaws...there are gaps in the fossil record...it's not proven..." etc, etc., and then sneak in the idea of a creator or intelligent designer as an alternative to the theory of evolution. It's a valid concern. One science teacher who spoke against the standards cited "research" by the Discovery Institute and other scientists who support the Intelligent Design "theory."

Fortunately, the Board did not adopt the "Academic Freedom" language.

Board: Teach evolution as `scientific theory' - 02/19/2008 - MiamiHerald.com
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Interestingly, several people asked for an "Academic Freedom" amendment to the standards allowing teachers "to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence," but the concern about that language is that the intent behind it is to open the door for teachers to say, "the theory of evoluation has a lot of flaws...there are gaps in the fossil record...it's not proven..." etc, etc., and then sneak in the idea of a creator or intelligent designer as an alternative to the theory of evolution. It's a valid concern. One science teacher who spoke against the standards cited "research" by the Discovery Institute and other scientists who support the Intelligent Design "theory."

Fortunately, the Board did not adopt the "Academic Freedom" language.

Board: Teach evolution as `scientific theory' - 02/19/2008 - MiamiHerald.com
Yes, the Academic Freedom language and the Critical Analysis language is all a ruse to allow unscientific notions to be introduced in science class.

The idea is that teachers should be able to teach anything they want in science class rather than being restricted to only things that are scientific. The problem is, how do you rule out the demands of the Church of the FSM and not have to teach that, too?