Florida takes two steps forward, one step back

The good news is, Florida, for the first time in its history, will feature the word “evolution” in its state science standards. The bad news is, the reality-based community in the state had to make a compromise in order to get the word in there.

Florida’s State Board of Education has voted to use the term “scientific theory of evolution” in new science standards, the first time the word “evolution” has been included.

Florida’s current standards require the teaching of evolution using code words like “change over time.”

Adding the term “scientific theory” before the term “evolution” was a modified proposal at least one board member called a compromise, not standards proposed originally to the committee. The option to include “scientific theory” was made late last week.

The board narrowly passed the proposed change, voting 4-3, after more than an hour of public comment and additional discussion by the board.

Religious fundamentalists, not surprisingly, wanted to keep the “e” word out altogether, but were willing to accept the compromise, because it emphasized the word “theory.”

It reminds me of one of my biggest creationist pet peeves.

They have no idea what a scientific “theory” is. Given how much they use the word, one would like to think they could have looked it up by now.

This is going back a ways, but James Q. Wilson had a good piece on the subject a few years ago.

People use “theory” when they mean a guess, a faith or an idea. A theory in this sense does not state a testable relationship between two or more things. It is a belief that may be true, but its truth cannot be tested by scientific inquiry. One such theory is that God exists and intervenes in human life in ways that affect the outcome of human life. God may well exist, and He may well help people overcome problems or even (if we believe certain athletes) determine the outcome of a game. But that theory cannot be tested. There is no way anyone has found that we can prove empirically that God exists or that His action has affected some human life. If such a test could be found, the scientist who executed it would overnight become a hero.

Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense. It has been tested repeatedly by examining the remains of now-extinct creatures to see how one species has emerged to replace another. Even today we can see some kinds of evolution at work, as when scholars watch how birds on the Galapagos Islands adapt their beak size from generation to generation to the food supplies they encounter.

Watch any conflict over evolution and, within minutes, you’ll hear a creationist insist that students should be exposed to competing “theories” and that the “theory of evolution” is no better than any other “theory.” The idea is to suggest that if the science were absolutely true, it’d be called the “fact of evolution.”

It’s maddening, and yet, the reality-based crowd has to keep dealing with it. The National Academy of Sciences, one of the world’s most respected institutions of scientific and engineering research, took this on a few years ago.

Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Gravity is a theory; just like electromagnetism, plate tectonics, and general relativity. For Florida to go out of its way to label the bedrock of modern biology as the “scientific theory of evolution” is actually quite accurate. But for creationists to consider the phrase a compromise that helps their side is nothing short of amusing.

Well put and this is a crucial point that is often overlooked.

The second half of this point is that NO incarnation of creationism has ever attained the status of theory, or even close.

  • I’d have no problem with evolution being challenged by competing scientific theories in schools. But creationism isn’t a theory. It cannot be tested against other known scientific principles and proved a valid theory because it’s sole source of legitimacy is one document and a bunch of people who insist they believe that document is correct because that’s what they’ve been told to believe. There is no scientific basis for creationism other than simple minded people claiming that since they are unable to understand how something so complex ever began therefore some really smart or powerful being must have made it. That’s not science, that’s a cop-out. Call creationism a faith-based concept, but just don’t call it a competing scientific theory since it can’t pass the test for that designation.

  • There’s the theory that creationist and fundamentalist have evolved without that part of the brain accountable for rational thought nor have they the ability to understand symbolism. I’m not sure if that is the kind of theory where these facts have been observed for so long there is no longer any debate over it or just the kind of theory that suggest the possibility.

  • A “theory” is an assumption, believed to be true, based on empirical observations and documented factual evidence. Darwin’s “theory” is based upon his empirical observations of plant and animal life as it was in his time, coupled with pre-recorded observations of earlier years and anatomical similarities/variances.

    A “theological theory” is, in fact, not a theory at all. There are no “empirical observations” to support it; indeed, numerous scientific explorations into the geological/architectural/archaeological record of the planet suggest that many “biblical events” did not happen in the way that the Bible records them—and that for the most part, the Bible is little more than old myths that stubborn people simply refuse to give up. One of the more renowned examples is the destruction of Jehricho—a city that was abandoned due to a severe earthquake roughly four centuries before “Joshua” ever pulled up outside the already-demolished walls with his band of Philistine-smiting Israelites.

  • CB: “Gravity is a theory; just like electromagnetism, plate tectonics, and general relativity.”
    I don’t recall gravity or electromagnetism being theories. They started out that way but have since been proven to be laws. Maxwell and Newton pretty much saw to that.

  • I wonder if they can petition the state of Florida to include the words “scientific theory” before things like:

    the “scientific theory” of gravity?

  • Maybe Cuba would like to buy several million acres of really flat real estate. If the FSSB is any indicator the residents like the idea of a supreme ruler who can’t be questioned.

  • What’s really scary is that despite all of the current rhetoric of change, hope, and the end of the Bush nightmare years is that there are still an uncomfortably large number of people out the who determinedly feudal. They insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they believe in angels, and they believe the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. They aren’t going away. We need to consider how to maintain the momentum for change and get their religion out of our education.

  • Ah semantics…

    In the vernacular a theory is nothing more than an idea, a hunch, a supposition.

    In science, …a theory is developed from a hypothesis … AFTER being tested and tested and with substantiating evidence that is repeatable.

    Consider studies done with the short lived fruit fly… which continue to reinforce and substantiate the theory of evolution.

  • The very definition of science is that something is ultimately testable, which is the antithesis of faith.

    How, pray tell (pun intended), do the creationists intend to test their hypothesis?

    I often hope it involves Kool-Aid.

  • Actually things like gravity and electro-magnitism are both.

    A scientific law describes what happens, a scientific theory explains why or how it happens.

    So, the mathematical formulas that describe and allow the computation of the strength of the gravitational pull between objects are part of scientific law. On the other hand, the set of tested explanations of why and how the objects are attracted to each other are part of scientific theory.

    Same thing with electro-magnetism.

  • Evolution is both fact and theory as Stephen Jay Gould explained:

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

    Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

    Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty.” The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

    Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: “I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection’s] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.”

  • I don’t really have a problem with this formulation, though Gould’s argument (and other’s here) is correct. E is both theory and fact, i.e. a proven theory.

    I am teaching historical geology at the college level and put in some ‘human footprints’ from the Cretaceous as a joke in my lecture. I had to go back a couple of times afterwards to be sure that people understood that this was bogus stuff I picked up at a creationist site.

    We just had an exam. I’ll check to see if that point got through.

    Also I won’t use the pictures again, not only because I don’t want to confuse students who don’t know any better, but also because I really don’t like making fun of other people’s beliefs.

  • Karl Popper (Logic of Scientific Discovery) defined “theory” as a set of assumptions which, if true, would account for empirical regularities.

    Every word of his concise definition matters. What I particularly like about it is the phrase “if true”. It applies even to assumptions which are “obviously true” or even “self evident”, such as Euclid’s postulates. Non-Euclidean geometries which violated those assumption were proposed long before it was realized that such “imaginary” systems had application in space travel and the world of subatomic physics. It applies even to sets of assumptions known to be false (e.g., gas laws which begin with the assumption of perfectly elastic billiard balls in totally empty space).

    Newton’s system (three laws of motion, the law of gravity) is “a set of assumptions which, if true, would account for empirical regularities” in the (Newtonian) physical world. That some empirical regularities require quantum theory to account for them doesn’t negate Newton (or Ptolemy for that matter … an awful lot of useful engineering and navigation was carried out using the “incorrect” Ptolemaic system).

    Evolution is “a set of assumptions which, if true, would account for observed regularities” in the biological world (or even imagined biological worlds). Genetic theory makes its own (complimentary) contribution. You can’t ask of a theory whether it is “true” or not. That is metaphysics, ontology. What you can ask is whether its assumptions lead logically/mathematically to regularities which have been precisely observed through repeatable sets of measurement operations.

    Evolution fits the definition. Christianity, Zoroastrianism, turtles-upon-turtles, etc. do not. Florida and much of the Confederacy strikes me as an intellectual hell-hole which we shouldn’t have shed a drop of blood to hold on to.

  • There is no authority except facts.

    Facts are obtained through accurate observations.

    Deductions are to be made only from facts.

    This is your taxonomy lesson for today, children.

  • I never challenge the teaching of Creationism because it conflicts with Evolution. That’s just falling into their talking points.

    I point out that Creationism is invalidated by Geology, Astronomy, Athropology and a variaty of other ‘REAL’ sciences.

    Question: – Creationist: – Science:
    Age of the Galaxy – 3000 years – 17 Billion Years
    Age of the Sun – 3000 years – Several Billion Years
    Age of the Earth – 3000 years – Several Billion Years
    Age of Life – 3000 years – Several Billion Years
    Age of Mankind – 3000 years – 10-100 Million Years
    Mankind in Americas – 2000 years ? – 17,000 Years

    Just sad really.

    Dale said: “Humans are cool. They’re evolved so much that they seem to have been created.”

    Having had my appendix nearly explode in my body, an occasion that would be lethal 100 years ago, I have to say that I don’t consider the human body as a reasonable ‘creation’. Nor would most people with back problems caused by having a spine evolved from a horizontal position to a vertical one (badly).

    jayinge- said: “What’s really scary is that despite all of the current rhetoric of change, hope, and the end of the Bush nightmare years is that there are still an uncomfortably large number of people out the who determinedly feudal.”

    You mean Medieval. Feudal is a political relationship between the ruler and the ruled that involves and exchange of mutual obligations and duties (I protect you, you feed my horse, basically).

  • CharlieT,

    Your comment is incorrect on several counts. There is no such thing as a scientific “law,” because it would close off the possibility that new empirical observations could disprove it. Science does not allow that. People, including some scientists, often use the word law informally to indicate the sheer explanatory and staying power of highly successful scientific principles. But the mechanisms and equations that represent the gravitational and electromagnetic forces are just as much scientific theories (i.e., subject to testing and falsification) as are evolution, plate tectonics, thermodynamics, etc. Moreover, you referred to Newton’s “law” of gravity. Actually, Einstein’s general THEORY of relativity completely overthrew Newton. Not only was Newtonian gravity not a law, it turned out to be flat wrong.

  • People:

    As I have said before

    GRAVITY does not exist.

    Go back and read your Einstein.

    What you call gravity is actually the warping of space-time by objects with mass.

    This just got me to thinking.

    If God is moving very quickly then what appears to be 15 billion years might only seem like 6,000 years to God.

  • Whoa— when did the creationists find this site? Life used to be so uncomplicated without religious fundamentalists coming in with their crackpot ‘theories’.

    Look, folks, most of the debate between science and religion is one of semantics. Science doesn’t attempt to explain what caused the big bang– so, great, it’s God, Allah, or whomever. And the Old Testament shows lots of people living to be in their hundreds, at a time when people would be lucky to see their 30s, so someone’s got a problem with their watch.

    Why can’t everyone just can the whole thing, realize that science and religion actually complement one another quite well (especially the fact that, when we consider the evolution from apes, it is quite clear that certain sectors of the population– religious fundamentalists– are a little closer to their banana stage than more enlightened folks), and quit these stupid and pointless arguments?

  • To reinforce the powerful proof behind theories, may I suggest that Florida require the same words “Sceintific theory of” in front of plate tectonics and general relativity as well as any other universal principle with the same level of proof so kids can get used to associating evolution with other things that no sensible person denies?

  • Lance (#21)

    Add to your list the mathematical value of the constant pi.

    According to 1 Kings 7:23 (also 2 Chronicles 4:2)

    Then he made the molten sea; it was round,
    ten cubits from brim to brim,
    and five cubits high,
    and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

    Since pi is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter (30:10), it equals 3 exactly. No need to memorize 3.14159265358979….

    Incidentally, at the time those “holy books” were written Jewish and Egyptian mathematicians could compute pi correctly to more than seven decimal places.

  • Thank you NPed, #22, for setting the record straight. Just as the word “theory” is misused to indicate a hunch or a guess in science, “law” is misused to indicate a theory that has become certain – there is no certainty in science. There are no scientific “laws” because there can be no absolute certainty.

  • neal (re #23)- what is this space-time mumbo-jumbo?
    What we see a gravity is acually God pushing things back to earth. Or it’s the devil’s work, those balloons & flying machines!
    And the theory that the earth is a sphere? Well, it looks awfully flat here in Florida! I’ll have to ask my minister about that!
    Snark off

    As a Floridian, as embarssing as it is, this actually is an improvement. As the title of Steve’s post implies, it’s really a net step ahead.
    As angry as these fundie bullies make me, I still won’t stoop to their level by correcting them, interrupting their blather with “the theory of god” any time they mention god.
    But y’all can feel free to do that, if you want. I’m sure that they wouldn’t mind, considering that this is what they are doing to science instruction in my state.

  • Does anyone else see irony in the fact that the comments on this post are bordered on the left by an ad for Ben Stein’s intelligent design movie? Why is CB accepting money to publicize this movie, anyway? I’m all for free expression, but I would hope pimping (no offense to the Clintons intended) this movie could be left to dumber blogs. Maybe I just need to contribute more…how much to take this ad down?

  • I think it should have to be renamed “Florida’s So-Called State Board of Education.” And they should have to use italics for emphasis.

  • neil wilson said:

    “..If God is moving very quickly then what appears to be 15 billion years might only seem like 6,000 years to God..”

    Neil, I love that exlanation, not that it will fly with the “true believers” (who actually, when you think of it, have little faith in gOd’s ability to do whatever the fuck he wants when he wants)…thanks..

  • toowearyforoutrage— thanks for the link! I love Scott Adams’ cynical humor, and am looking forward to reading the book.

    Hmmmm… and I will have to check up on the string theory you mention. I haven’t heard of that before, but will definitely have to add it to my list of arguments.

  • #32 gets it close. It’s actually called the Florida Theoretical Board of Education. Or maybe it’s the Florida Board of Education, In Theory.

    Somethin’.

  • Lance’s numbers are approximately correct, although James Usherr suggested that the Earth was created in 4004 bc, thus about 6000 years old. The other numbers are about so:

    Lifespan of a human ~ 100 years

    Human civilization ~10,000 years

    Modern humans ~100,000 years

    Stone tools ~1,000,000 years

    Age of oceanic crust ~100,000,000 years

    Precambrian Explosion ~540,000,000 years

    Oldest Dated Rocks ~3.8 Billion years

    Age of the Earth ~4.56 Billion years

    Age of the Solar System ~4.6 Billion years

    Age of the Universe ~15 Billion years

  • My teenage daughter told me the other day that they’re going to start teaching Intelligent Design at her high school here in Texas. She also told me about how one of her best friends scoffed at the idea that some people think we evolved from monkees, as she’s a creationist and thinks that’s what evolution teaches. I found this to be quite disturbing.

    The only highlight of this discussion was knowing how surprised her friend will be when she learns that Intelligent Design people also think we evolved from primates, and that they believe this was part of how our Creator created us. I’m not sure which is worse: That these people know so little about evolution, or that they know even less about the theories they support.

  • This is something I posted on another site some time ago:

    Intelligent Design is not science

    Look. I am all for religious freedom. That is, after all, one of the founding principles of the country. And I am a benefactor of this great gift of the Constitution. But no matter how you try to gussy it up, intelligent design is just Biblical Creation repackaged with scientific sounding double-speak.

    Science involves observation of what we see, touch, smell, hear or taste and testing this imperical data to develop a theory to explain it. Then that theory is tested using real scientific methods and careful documentation of the observations. Based on the data collected, the theory becomes more likely to be true or less likely. Then, the theory is systematically refined based on what was learned and new tests are performed. And thus, over time, we learn more and more about how things really work.

    Intelligent design begins with the assumption that every word in an ancient text, written down by people who came along centuries later, translated and re-translated and re-re-translated, is the 100% undeniable truth. Keep in mind that the world view of the peoples who passed on these stories encompassed everything up to that mountain over there. Then you perform any number of mental contortions to try force science to fit the preconceived notions laid out in the text. Dress it up with enough scienctific sounding jargon and many people will believe it is actual science. Which, is the real goal. Make it sound like a scientific theory and maybe you can force biblical creation into the science classroom.

    I am all for a comparative religions class in public schools. One that takes a historical and impartial look at serveral of the great religious movements, but does not lift one above the others. That is the proper venue for religon in the classroom.

    The problem is that many people who take the biblical creation story literally, do not want their children to hear about evolution or other religious ideas at all. What they really want is for only their one narrow vision of things to ever be heard.

  • #8/25: Actually, the words “scientific theory of” were added in the standards for those other topics you mentioned (plate tectonics, gravity, etc.). Those topics though, aren’t near as controversial or sexy so that they changed as well wasn’t publicized all that much. So, in that respect, the FL DOE did do something sorta right.

    Working for an educational publishing company in Florida, we’ve been following all this pretty closely. Imagine our ire when Pluto lost ‘planet’ status right before the new Science program went to press…

  • …one of [my daughter’s] best friends [is] a creationist… -The Good Doc

    You need to vet your daughter’s friends.

  • The whole idea of Intelligent Design is like saying:

    Me: I believe that rain is God’s tears. He cries when you touch yourself.

    Scientist: Scientific observation shows that actually rain is water that has condensed from water vapor in certain clouds. As the water droplets grow larger they fall to the earth as rain.

    Me: That’s because God’s tear ducts are made of rain clouds.

  • There’s a pretty thorough, brief history of the Intelligent Design movement here. A Shrub-appointed federal judge ruled Dec. 20, 2005 that intelligent design is creationism with a scientific veneer, the purpose of which is to slip God back into the classroom through the transparent device of refusing to mention his name. It is unconstitutional.

  • I think it should have to be renamed “Florida’s So-Called State Board of Education.”

    Alternate suggestion: “Florida’s State Board of So-Called Education.”

    Sad to say, I’ve got a couple siblings who are young earth creationists and who are home-schooling their kids (after my wife and I broke the ice and home-schooled our two little atheists with great success). The kids are really nice, but as they grow older their educational options are circumscribed by their upbringing. Since young earth creationism denies so many fields of science—physics, astronomy, geology, biology, cosmology, astrophysics, chemistry, etc—without a herculean rebellious effort by the kids they’ll never have the opportunity to explore careers in any of these disciplines, and can have difficulty just getting into a normal college. This is probably one of the reasons why the fundie colleges are successful, having a pool of potential students who would be hard-pressed to get in anywhere else. If the kids do manage to get into a normal college, as one of them did so far, they may very well end up ridiculed by their peers (as he has been) and thus having the kind of social challenges that entails heaped upon an already difficult transition to the real world.

    Trouble is, their parent are in such denial about the real world that they simply go blithely ahead convinced that their kids will be among the well-adjusted minority. And their kids, as I said, are nice kids, to all appearances quite well-adjusted and confident. What a disservice, though, to foreclose a world of life options because of parents’ spiritual myopia.

  • “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory” is really kind of upside-down. Theories explain sets of facts, provide a framework for understanding them. Facts are paltry things, easy and cheap to accumulate; theories are triumphs of intellect over the apparent chaos of reality. So the phrase should read “it’s not merely a fact, it’s an actual theory.

  • Things keep up like this and it will be the open-minded, education prone, secular humanists doing the home schooling.

    The People’s Opiate gets a bad rap, because the people get all junked out on it. Eastern creation myths posit incalculably long time periods. One kalpa equals 4.32 billion years, though in Buddhism it gets more complicated (as most things do until they become startlingly simple) but the “regular” kalpa is 16 million years long. If i remember the myth correctly, the Himalayas were formed (changed) by a great bird gently rubbing the very tip of its wing along the Earth as it flies by once per kalpa. The number of times you’ll stumble across the phrase “incalculable kalpas” in Buddhist doctrine is, well, incalculable.

    As another poster pointed out, the foundations of the Semitic traditions are shored up by ancient “magic” and practices, e.g. Egyptian. Moses was raised in the house of Pharaoh, like royalty. We can assume that he was initiated into the rites of Egyptian science/magic. At least one author is willing to suggest that the Ark really could have been magical, as Moses would have had the knowledge to pull off such a stunt.

    And we shouldn’t forget that what we call Christianity is but one possible permutation of it (the one that happened to take over because it was A. more militant and B. had state favor). Even in the Orthodox Church there are latent ideas that contradict the major premises of Western Christianity. The largest church in Christendom was the Hagia Sophia. Sophia is a feminine noun; the principle of wisdom is – by grammatic necessity – female; there was a strong school of thought which believed “God” to be the lesser divinity…in charge of the base Earth. God may wear the robe, but Sophia wears the pants.

    The Cathars (almost certainly descendants of the Gnostics and the ancient Hermetic traditions) would be unrecognizable as Christians to us…unless your idea of a Christian is one who tries to live like Christ, or a Buddhist. Actually, they were unrecognizable to medieval Christians; which didn’t bother them, because they refused to recognize the Christians anyhow. They called the Catholic Church the Church of Satan…and they really meant it. Consequently, the Church of Satan launched in inquisition that wiped them out. (Unless you buy that they folded with the Templars into Freemasonry.)

    The perversion happens at the vector between the spiritual plane and the temporal plane. A bunch of people acting like Jesus wouldn’t get very many ornate churches built, nor would they make very good soldiers. So the temporal church merely invokes the spiritual plane, without ever encouraging participation in it. Invocation is powerful; encouragement is dangerous.

    Whew, sorry…i couldn’t help it. But i will say that evolution is demonstrably false: if it were true, then this argument wouldn’t be taking place. (snark)

  • For all the Christians out there… Although there is no exact date available for when Jesus was born, it is generally accepted that it was 2007 years and 2 months ago. Later this year, when December 25th rolls around it will be 2008 years ago, and so on…

    Why is it then that since the 70’s through the 80’s, into the 90’s and still going into the new century… the Earth is still 6000 years old. It’s never 6001, 6002, 6003…. it’s always 6000 years old.

    Hmmm… Can Intelligent design explain that to me?

  • I always considered it a “phenomenon,” as in “insanely low prices for credit risk evolved over time, with obvious results.” Or a technique, as in “we designed this propeller blade using computer-based evolutionary optimisation with a payback function stressing efficiency over durability.”

  • I would suggest that the Florida Bored of Edumacation would be quite appropriate…

    I would also suggest that you ask the religious among you how their studies into the unfounded and unprovable rumor that the Big Book of Christian Fairy Tales is actually the living word of an unseen, unknowable, unprovable concept of an Invisible Sky Fairy is going. It certainly seems to provoke interesting reactions amongst the pagan superstitionists, er, religious people, I know…

  • Comments are closed.