First Coast Forum – Schools, Science, and the State – Thursday, April 23rd at 8pm on 89.9 FM and WJCT TV
The Florida Board of Education recently revised its science standards to require the teaching of evolution. The state legislature has met twice since then, and both times lawmakers have proposed bills requiring a “critical analysis” of this scientific theory. The latest bill— sponsored by Jacksonville Senator Steven Wise—didn’t get far in this year’s session, but this controversial debate is likely to continue. Senator Wise says it’s important to expose students to other ideas such as intelligent design. Critics argue that challenging evolution could open a door for religious doctrine in science classes.
What should our students learn and who should decide? We’ll discuss these issues with local lawmakers, religious experts, teachers, and parents on our next First Coast Forum Schools, Science, and the State, April 23rd at 8pm only on WJCT.
Panelists Include:
- Steve Goyer – pastor representing OneJax
- Dr. Marianne Barnes, UNF Education Professor
- Stan Jordan, Duval County School Board, former state legislator
- Rachel Raneri, Duval County District School Advisory Council Chair
- David Campbell, Orange Park Ridgeview H.S. teacher
- Quinton White, JU
- Paul Hooker of the Presbytery of St. Augustine
Viewers can participate in First Coast Forum
Email questions and comments to firstcoastforum@wjct.org or by calling (904) 358-6347 during the program.
Tags: 89.9, controversey, creationism, evolution, First Coast Forum, florida, jacksonville, npr, pbs, schools, science, state, WJCT
April 21, 2009 at 6:30 am
“Intelligent Design” is not science, it is religious dogma that has no place in a science class. Keep science in the science class and religious dogma in a theology class.
April 21, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I wholeheartedly support the proposition of teaching Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution in the classroom. If Intelligent Design is a farce and Evolution is the ultimate truth, then an honest presentation of both side by side will only bare this out.
However, I am of the opinion of G. K. Chesterton when he stated, “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
I’m always leery of one sided arguments especially when it concerns the education of our youth. Let’s at least give them the benefit of the doubt and some credit for being smart enough to choose what they believe to be true after they have had an opportunity to observe an accurate representation of both sides.
April 22, 2009 at 1:51 am
Apparently we all need a refresher in exactly what science is. It is defined as “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” All of the many branches of science use empirical data, which can be observed and experimented. Please show me how any part of creationism can be SCIENTIFICALLY studied.
I would also like to point out that this argument is not “Evolution vs. Creation,” as scientists do not believe a god created the world and then animals evolved on it.. creationism also challenges our theories of space and time. You are challenging all branches of science by saying it has all poofed into existence or even that some cosmic will determines how events will happen. Evolution begins with Biology, which is fueled by chemistry and ultimately created by physics. It is certainly NOT something from nothing.
It is very important for everyone to understand that all theories in science forever remain theories, and though experiments may prove an outcome true every time, true scientists know that nothing is really fact, as it is only fact here and now and unseen factors may change. GRAVITY IS A THEORY. This doesn’t make it any less true, it simply means that the theory can be modified as new developments arise. Evolution is a very complex theory that has many factors and new discoveries in many fields such as genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy contribute to refining our understanding.
Christian creationism comes from a single source, just one book. The study of the contents of a singular book (be it fiction or non) is for literature class. Science is not about discussing the views of other people. It is about getting facts from many sources and being able to repeat an experiment and get the same results thus proving a hypothesis.
We must also realize that all this is controversy over christian creationism. IF it is determined that intelligent design should be allowed in the classroom, then I demand that the students learn all cultures’ creation stories, as there is no evidence to suggest that one is right and one is wrong. An older male living amongst the clouds in roman garb dictating our lives is no more believable to me than all the world resting upon a tortoise’s back or a pantheon of gods to appease. What about Vishnu and Buddha?? Creationism must not be allowed in our schools because it decides that everyone in that class/school/city/state must be a christian and taught baseless dogma! And if I’m not mistaken, that’s a violation of everyone’s civil rights to freedom of religion!
Finally, we are losing our competitive edge in the world by allowing our students to float through life thinking that all questions have been answered, all diseases cured, every invention invented. The future requires minds that are ready to probe for new questions and new answers, not a generation of mindless people ready to leave it in god’s (or China’s) hands.
April 22, 2009 at 3:42 am
The place for a debate between intelligent design and science is in the science journals. Alas, though the journals have been open for such discussion for 80 years, ID advocates have refused to participate. They will not publish their research results (few as they are), they will not offer their findings for scientists to analyze and try to replicate. In the past 20 years, fewer than a score of articles that might charitably be described as ID-supporting have been submitted to journals (so far as anyone can tell, every ID article ever submitted has been published).
Contrast the whimpering of ID advocates to get a place at the science table with the advocates of cold fusion. Criticized as crank science, cold fusion has been dropped from most public discussion. Cold fusion advocates have never showed up at the Texas State Board of Education — nor any other — demanding to be included in curricula and in the textbooks.
However, there are more than 200 papers published on the topic in science journals. Cold fusion advocates continue to work in their labs, even opening their labs up to CBS’s “60 Minutes” recently to show off what (little) they have.
ID could be to biology what cold fusion is to physics. No physicist I have ever found argues that cold fusion is worthy of discussion in high school curricula. But in contrast to the significant and continuing research output of cold fusion, intelligent design is silent on the research front.
Is cold fusion crank science? Certainly it does not deserve a place in the curriculum of any high school. And, as intelligent design is hundreds of times less well documented than cold fusion, it also deserves to be left out of high school curricula in science.
Intelligent design advocates refuse to debate. The pages of high school science curricula must be closed to them, in fairness, as a result.
April 22, 2009 at 3:56 am
[...] From the station’s blog (quoted entirely): [...]
April 22, 2009 at 9:50 am
Teachers in high school have so little time to teach the volume of material that they are required to cover each year, that they do not have the freedom to explore a subject in the way that many ID proponents are advocating. Adding ID to the curriculum would result in a hurried presentation of both evolution and ID, which would leave the students confused. I would suspect that this is exactly the result that the Discovery Institute, who designed the ID movement, wants.
I work in a field related to biology and evolution forms the foundation of the modern understanding of biology. While evolution may not seem very important to someone outside of life sciences, it is an essential element of a proper science education. It would be a disservice to high school students to cripple their understanding of this issue by muddying the waters with psuedo-science presented as an equal and alternate theory to evolution. I support a critical examination of all issues, but it should wait until students have the freedom to fully research the background information for each side and then form an independent conclusion. Students should not be expected to choose between science and psuedo-science when most do not even understand what science is.
April 22, 2009 at 4:03 pm
All 3, Intelligent Design, Creationism and Evolution should be taught in Social Studies’ classes. The teaching of the basic principles of all 3 is educating students on what is going on in the world around them, which is what education is supposed to do. As far as anyone deciding what they believe in, is strictly up to them and their parents. The schools are there as a source of information for the beliefs in the world around them. They will make up their own minds, when they are ready to. These are theories that people believe and disagree on. The basic principles of each theory should be taught, so they know what people are disagreeing about. Respect for differences should also be taught. They will eventually make up their own minds, but they need to know what these theories are all about, all of them.
April 22, 2009 at 8:16 pm
There are so many reasons why the idea of teaching intelligent design (ID) and creationism (C) is silly that it is not possible to list them all in this format. I will list two: 1–Teaching either ID or C is clearly illegal. If we do it, we will be sued and we will lose. We will then not only look like idiots (and rightfully so) but we will also have to pay damages and huge attorneys’ fees–wasted money that will have to come from tax dollars. 2–Particularly silly is the resort by creationists to say that the “debate” should be taught, so we can let people make up their own minds and “respect differences.” Problem–if respecting difference determines what is taught, then there is no limit on what stupidity needs to be taught. Some people still believe the sun revolves around the earth. Others believe astrology is real science. Do we need to teach that in school to respect difference? In fact, there is no debate among scientists about the validity of evolution versus creationism. There is only a well-financed public relations campaign by certain fundamentalist religionists to advance a religious agenda in public schools. (Note–I don’t say Christians, because it isn’t just Christians. Creationism is a very popular theory amongst fundamentalist Muslims in countries like Turkey and Iran.) This is not about the “theory” of evolution versus the “theory” of intelligent design. Evolution is not a theory–it is a fact. We have witnessed evolution occurring in our lifetime. Why haven’t we developed an effective vaccine against HIV or even the flu? Because those viruses have evolved. Why are some bacteria now antibiotic resistant? They evolved. The “theory” part of evolution is the mechanism to explain how it happens, which is usually natural selection. The evidence to support this explanation for how evolution occurs is overwhelming. ID, on the other hand, is not a theory at all. It is a speculative hypothesis for which there is no evidence–it is no more than a “what if” guess that can’t be proven in the real world. Here are some “theories” that are every bit as valid as the “theory” of ID: The world was created by the touch of the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The world was created by Shiva the Destroyer. Battlestar Galactica is not a drama series; it is a documentary. The world was created by magic conjured up by aliens who flew by in a giant spaceship but thought it would be cool to plant dinosaur fossils everywhere to fool us into believing that evolution was true.
Frankly, that we are even having this “debate” is ridiculous. And the composition of the panel is ridiculous too. Seven people on the panel, and only one actual scientist. Absurd. For those of you who are still clinging to the mind-bogglingly ignorant idea that the earth is less than ten thousand years old–radiometric dating and carbon 14 testing and the entire weight of science in the last 500 years proves that you are wrong. And if you don’t want to think about being related to apes–tell you what–don’t shave or shower for a year. Then look in the mirror. We are not just related to apes–we ARE apes.
April 23, 2009 at 8:18 pm
To me an unstated problem is caused by those who believe in the literal interpretation of their version of the bible. Admitting any variation to it is a threat to their belief sytemand the existence of God. There is no way to reach these insecure people. They can’t see man’s work in the Bible or God’s work in evolution.
The topic was covered in an excelent manner by the broadcast. Cudos to WJCT for having such a fine program.
April 23, 2009 at 8:39 pm
School board members from three different North Florida counties on the panel and not one of them knew the difference between a scientific theory and a hunch. Stan Jordan was most annoying quote mining Thomas Jefferson and delivering his responses in an arrogant and dismissive tone.
You’d think these people would have looked through a telescope once in their lives or watched a single program on the Science Channel. They certainly didn’t project a very informed or articulate view of their position as creationists. Oops – I think that’s an oxymoron…
WJCT did a great job promoting this forum. My expectations were high but sad to say that was a poor use of sixty minutes.
Hopefully Stan will be proven right that this “debate” and accompanying turd of legislation will quickly get the flush and avoid a costly lawsuit.
In closing, let us all remember George Carlin’s 11th Commandment – “Thou shall keep thy religion to thy self”
April 23, 2009 at 8:53 pm
P Guglielmoni – you hit the nail on the head! Accepting Evolution = no Adam/Eve = no “fall” (original sin) = nothing to be “saved” from which is the cornerstone of fundamentalist Christian belief. Game, set and match.
That possibility must be very threatening to a true believer. Not trying to bash anyone’s religious beliefs – just want them out of my kid’s science class. Peace out.
April 23, 2009 at 9:20 pm
First, I was somewhat piffed I was one of the people interviewed on the street and nothing I said got put in. That being said, the school board members had me slamming my head into my desk. The one schoolboard member in the first and third segments especially. That being said, I believe WJCT did the best they could in a 60 minute program.
April 23, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Apparently we live in a parallel universe different from the one I thought I had lived in. According to School Board member Weeks, we should teach ID because frequently old theories are proven wrong. Her example–that it used to be thought that we could not travel faster than the speed of light, but now our space program has proven that wrong. Gosh, I missed that event. Apparently Battlestar Galactica was a documentary after all.
April 24, 2009 at 1:54 am
I was sorely disappointed with the panel and felt the scientific community was not well represented. You’re telling me WJCT couldn’t find a scientist in all of Jacksonville who could properly describe to others what the scientific method is or contrast the scientific definition of “hypothesis” and “theory”?? A major myth is that “theory” is given the same meaning in the two phrases “theory of evolution” and “intelligent design theory.” The latter would be more accurately described in science terms as “intelligent design hypothesis” because it cannot advance past the first step in the scientific process. Case closed! That is the most that can be said about it in a science class. If you want more, go to social studies class where kids are aware they are learning about cultures and religions. Don’t try and sneak it it science class, where because of the nature of the class (a subject about finding truth in the world through trial and rigorous method) the school becomes dangerously close to endorsing a certain religion.
I’m just so disappointed in WJCT because I learned a lot of what I know about science from an amazing biology teacher at Douglas Anderson, who was also a real life scientist at Mayo Clinic. He’s a phenomenal teacher and the knowledge he gave me shaped me into the person I am today. I know there a lots of hardworking professional scientists there in Jax who could’ve given more direct and informative answers.
But then again, as Jon Phillips points out (I’m glad he wrote it because I thought I heard wrong I was so astounded) the creationists didn’t do a very good job of defending their view. So many “I think” and “I believe” phrases really undermine an argument.
In any case, let me thank WJCT for the First Coast Forum, it is a wonderful way to keep abreast of issues in the community. I only wish the programming were as good here in Gainesville.
April 24, 2009 at 5:41 am
[...] thanks to commenter Kristine for remembering that WJCT’s First Coast Forum aired Schools, Science and the State recently. The station has a spot reserved on this page for posting of the video, but I can’t [...]
April 24, 2009 at 8:39 am
Proponents of id claim that evolution shouldn’t be taught as FACT, yet I don’t recall any of them specifying just who has taught it as fact. It is supported by facts, but it is taught as a theory. This sounds like nothing more than alarmist rhetoric.
Proponents of id keep insisting that it be called the THEORY of evolution. Since when has it NOT been called a theory. Inflammatory rhetoric?
Proponents of id claim that the reason they want id taught along with evolution is to give students an alternative explanation & to introduce critical thinking. Very laudable. I assume they would be just as willing to apply the same standards to their private Christian schools teaching id/creationism. Wouldn’t they?
Richard Kusnierek
April 24, 2009 at 9:49 am
The PBS program on the Dover ruling already covered this debate. The ability of ignorant, religious fundamentalists to reinvent arguments (creationism, ID) to try to stop scientific progress needs to stop. Our future (and our children’s future) depends on it.
Shame on WJCT for presenting this topic as a fair discussion between reasonable people.
April 24, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Mary Tippery’s comments hit the nail on the head. I, too, was disappointed in the makeup of the panel (although biologist Quinton White did a good job of remaining polite in the face of what he had to endure), and WJCT’s work. With regard to the latter, on “In Context” today, I heard a male reporter explain in detail the creationist “theory” of “irreducible complexity.” (IC) First, it isn’t a theory. It’s a hypothesis. Calling it a theory lends credibility to it that it has not earned and does not deserve.
Second, if you are going to spend 60 seconds explaining IC wouldn’t you have a journalistic obligation to also point out that every example cited by ID’ers of supposed IC has been refuted by credible scientists? Third, let me translate the argument of IC into actual English–”I don’t believe in evolution, and therefore I can’t figure out how this eye (or whatever) came into being, and since I can’t figure it out due to having discounted the only reasonable explanation for it, it must have been God. Or aliens. Or something.”
Another example of sloppy journalism–the repeated references to the creation of the universe (the Big Bang theory) as being part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory of evolution has never purported to explain either the creation of the universe, or the creation of the earth, or even how life itself first appeared. The theory of evolution is related solely to explaining how life on earth changed over time beginning at the point where life first arose around 3 or 4 billion years ago.
April 24, 2009 at 7:10 pm
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
April 24, 2009 at 9:35 pm
What I never got a chance to say last night:
A couple of basic definitions. A hypothesis is a prediction that can be tested. ID and its various sub components fail to meet the standards for a hypothesis, let alone a theory, because supernatural explanations cannot, by definition, be tested under controlled conditions. Negative results (as in the double blind studies on intercessory prayer) are explained away by the faithful as flawed because the ineffable designer deigned to not answer the requests.
A theory is a proposed explanation for observed events that is supported by extensive experimental evidence. It is not some guess or whim.
Evolution is fact. It is observed in the field and in the lab. Speciation events (sorry, Ms Weeks) have been observed under lab conditions and the evidence for them in the field is overwhelming. Macroevolutionary transitions between reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, tetrapods and whales, fish and tetrapods, and various major groups of mammals are supported by embryology, DNA, and the fossil record. Change happens. Period.
Natural selection is the theory part. Theories explain HOW the observed facts happen using the best available information. Throughout the entire program these words were misused and abused in all the video clips and by several of the panelists. If folks are going to talk the talk they need to at least understand what the words mean. School board members, recognize yourselves here.
Evolution doesn’t begin in the history of life until you have a mechanism of passing heritable traits from one generation to the next. Origin of life is a whole different topic from evolution.
Note to creationists-If you really want to be taken seriously in all this you need to expend a modicum of effort to at least learn the basic vocabulary and fundamentals of the topic you are trying to assault. Otherwise you will end up like Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe and have to admit under oath that your proposed reframing of science will admit not only ID but also astrology.
Rev Hooker, with more patience than I would have shown, explained that faith and science are two entirely different domains of thought. Atheists, agnostics, and most theists admit that religion does not belong in science class. Scientists would certainly agree. If the religious conservatives want to teach their faith they have a perfectly adequate place to do so. It is called a church or a mosque or a synagogue or a temple or… If they want to demand time in my science classroom then I am perfectly justified in asking for an invitation to teach evolutionary theory from the pulpit of First Baptist Church on a Sunday morning.
Irreducible complexity was completely demolished at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial. Read the transcripts, available online. It should be noted that in its 20 year history the Discovery Institute (the main intelligent design “think” tank) has discovered nothing of scientific value except how to turn various grants into hot air, press releases, and a pathetic propaganda film.
Hitler was not a Darwinist, Mr. Jordan, and evolutionary biology was not responsible for the holocaust. Groups of Nazi soldiers marched into battle with “Gott mit uns,” on their belt buckles, not homages to Darwin. Hitler quoted a lot of people in Mein Kampf, including Martin Luther who had some decidedly anti-Semitic ideas, but natural selection is never mentioned in the book or in Hitler’s other writings. Darwin abhorred the movement called social Darwinism, the forerunner of the eugenics movement. Rabid xenophobia existed long before the Nazis (remember what the Israelites did to Jericho, for example). Darwin’s use of the term races in the title of his book, by the way, was in the context of variations within populations as in different groups of animals. Like Abraham Lincoln, Darwin had some ideas that we would consider racist by modern standards but he at least considered the Negro race to be human. You really need to find a more accurate source of information than a notoriously inaccurate movie starring a former Nixon speechwriter turned comedian.
Finally, the creationist movement is not reinventing itself or its arguments. It is evolving.
April 24, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I thank Davec for his comments, which I take to be from David Campbell, one of the panelists last night from whom we did not hear enough, as opposed to certain school board members from whom we heard too much. I wish every science teacher in Florida understood the issue as well as he does. I would only have a niggling quibble with one thing–I think it is at least theoretically possible to have a “test” of sorts for ID hypothesis. It is just that so far ID has flunked every test, because there has been zero evidence produced to support it. Here’s how ID could be validated from a theoretical standpoint: We could find an unmistakeable sign of tampering by supernatural engineers in human “junk” DNA; or we could find a 3 billion year old fossil Rosetta Stone left by the aliens who seeded our planet with life; or God could show up in person and do something spectacular like Klaatu did in the Day the Earth Stood Still; or the Battlestar Galactica could show up in orbit and broadcast its happiness to be back home after the end of the Cylon wars. Or we could just wait at the edge of our seats for ID’ers to propose a way to test ID, actually perform the test, show how the results of that test prove they might be right, and then have one or more unbiased scientists replicate their results. All of the above are about equally likely.
April 26, 2009 at 8:28 am
I think it is a very insightfull decision by WJCT to produce 2 talk-worthy and well done First Coast Forums in 2009. January’s “Police Involved Shootings” and Thursday’s “Schools, Science and the State” are topics that the community needs to get involoved in. To me, no other station can provide the depth and air time that WJCT delivers to us on local topics. The news stations cover these topics in quick stories that offer little insight from the actual community where these topics hit the hardest.
The host of the Forum stated at the beginning of the show that the purpose of the show was to spark a dialogue in our community. Well done, WJCT and thank you for your efforts!
Best,
RoseMarie
p.s. Stan Jordan’s attack on WJCT at the end of the program was in poor taste and in weak judgement. As an invited guest, he should have not questioned why they were seated at the table discussing this topic with the general population. He is old, old government in both body and thought. If he really has doubts about open public Forums, the sooner he is removed from the School Board the better.