Comments on: Florida: “Academic Freedom” Label for Same Old Antievolution

By: Kristine

Kristine — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:48:14 +0000

The problem is that these people have no concept of open-ended inquiry or of inquiry-based research, so their model of “learning” is the Crossfire/FoxNews is-not/is-too screaming that characterizes what is supposed to be our modern political discourse. This contrivance is not a good way to learn about anything, or for that matter, how to pick a President.

I heard a wonderful quote as we were watching a DVD at work regarding the VTS curriculum: “Education is what you do when you don’t know.” When you don’t know something, there isn’t “two sides,” but a void. True education teaches one to confront the unknown, not to passively choose between an answer and a superstition.

I wouldn’t suppose that these people are well versed in or respectful of learning theory, either.

By: J-Dog

J-Dog — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:02:42 +0000

Still no comments on his site. I guess God worked another freakin’ miracle and wiped it out. Either that or the guy is just the usual dishonest reationist.

By: Dave S.

Dave S. — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:10:34 +0000

The phrase I sometimes use is that science is stable, but it doesn’t stand still. One of the ironies of science is that the experiments by Lavoisier used to finally demolish phlogiston theory lead to the caloric theory of heat, which was itself eventually overturned.

By: Austringer

Austringer — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:29:58 +0000

This is a theme that I’ve noted before, that science itself is impugned by these people, because they have to take the stance that science never decides anything; stuff is never found to be wrong and can always remain on the table. Science, though, works in about the opposite fashion: we learn most clearly not what is correct, but what cannot be correct. Phlogiston is wrong and won’t be making a comeback. “Young-earth” views of the age of the earth (6 to 20 thousand years, tops) are wrong and will not be making a comeback. Students need to learn that science means that we can know with high confidence that some things are just wrong. The antievolution forces have to deny this at every opportunity.

By: Dave S.

Dave S. — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:37:32 +0000

I’ve always wondered how this “academic freedom” is supposed to work in practice. Do the teachers spend one class teaching the mainstream thoery, and then the next class teaching that what they just taught in the previous class is wrong? And when the students ask which is it, right or wrong, are the teachers supposed to answer that they can’t take a position on that since the side deemed wrong would have their academic freedom suppressed, but the students can decide for themselves!

Such is life in PoMo High kids, where the cheerleaders have to cheer for both teams and nobody ever wins. Especially the students.

By: Austringer

Austringer — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:59:24 +0000

Thanks for filling in some of the points I didn't get to. One of the AtBC regulars posted a comment at Gornoski's site concerning the one-sided blogroll while pushing the "fair result" quote.

By: Dave S.

Dave S. — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:26:46 +0000

The majority of our country believes in an intelligent designer with a plan for our lives yet public schools teach children that we are but accidents with no real purpose.

Like many avid ID supporters, not only does he not understand evolution theory, he also doesn’t seem to understand ID. At least, he’s not following the talking points. Granted, this can be excused because even the major ID players will say different things depending on who they are talking to. Here for instance he seems to have missed the fact that the motives and identity of the Designer are supposed to be forever removed from ID “theory” as non-scientific questions, so says Dembski for instance. But as I say, ID advocates, like we recently saw with that same Dembski, say that the Designer of ID is the Christian God.

Anyway, I wonder if he’d be impressed with the fact that the vast majority of scientists, especially those in relevant fields, accept evolution? Oh course not! Then suddenly being in the majority doesn’t mean anything.

I feel sorry for any student convinced through evolution science that mating and protecting territory is their highest purpose in life.

I’d feel sorry for that student too since s/he has obviously learned no more about it than Mr. Gornoski.

It is no surprise then that since the decades when creation was replaced by survival of the fittest violent crime has surged over 330% according to Specialty Research Associates.

Specialty Research indeed. I wonder how it is that the United States is the country in the western world that has the highest levels of belief (and lowest levels of acceptance of evolution) and at the same time is also the most violent country?

We have to commend the kid though for learning from the pros on how to be dishonest and to hide his agenda better.

God likes that sort of thing.