Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

As lawmakers wrestle with financial and policy challenges that could affect the quality of education in the state, one influential legislator is also hoping to change the way evolution is taught in Florida public schools.

Science education advocates are alarmed by a bill before the Legislature that they say could force teachers to challenge evolution at the expense of settled science.

Stephen Wise, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, has resurrected legislation he authored in 2009 that calls for a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution." Wise's bill failed to pass in 2009.

The critical analysis approach originated at the Discovery Institute, a think tank that supports the teaching of intelligent design, which holds that evolution alone cannot explain life, which is so complex that it must have had a creator.

Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, led another battle over evolution in 2008, but the Legislature failed to pass her bill that would have given protection to teachers who criticized evolution.

Storms' bill was filed in response to science standards adopted that year by the State Board of Education, which for the first time used the word "evolution" instead of such terms as "biological change over time." The standards also required more intense and detailed teaching of the concept.

Wise, R-Jacksonville, thinks his evolution bill may have a better chance this year because there are more conservatives in the Legislature and because he chairs a substantive committee.

"Why would you not teach both theories at the same time?" Wise said, referring to evolution and what he called "nonevolution."

"You have critical thinking in school," Wise added. "Why would you not do both?"

In 2009, Wise told WMNF radio he was concerned that students might be persecuted for wanting to talk about intelligent design.

"Why do we still have apes if we came from them?" Wise, a retired educator, said during the interview with the Tampa radio station. "And those are the kind of questions kids need to ask themselves. You know, 'how did we get here?' And, you know, there's more than one theory on this thing. And the theory is evolution, the other one is intelligent design."

That being said, because it IS based in the US...and we are a predominately Christian nation...and most fundamental churches espouse the creation theory... it does basically sum up as a Christian view.

Wedge strategy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy)

Ya know I luvs ya, right?!

Meh... I still agree with evolution...I just don't see a problem with a teacher being honest and saying evolution doesn't have an explanation for the original creations of life and saying, some people answer that question with the belief of an intelligent creator. I'm definitely not a 6000-year-old-Earth creationist, haha. Genetic drift and natural selection don't justify the first beginnings of life. It's false for evolutionists to say, "we can explain how life was created"...they have a good explanation for how life has changed over time. But it stops there. Biopoesis has a theory on the creation of life, but I don't EVER recall being taught that in school... I had to go dig that one up on my own, and it's never the subject of the debate.

I don't see evolution and a theory of an intelligent creator being opposite or opposed of each other. My source for that isn't, and never has been the Discovery Institute, who are evidently partisan fucks, haha.

Ben Stein has an interesting on Intelligent Design, I know it's on Netflix streaming, called Expelled. It's worth taking a viewing.

I am not on board with taking evolution theory out of schools, but I don't see an issue with intelligent design, or a 'creator-based' theory being offered as "this is something that some people believe". There's not wrong with taking a "top level" evaluation of the different theories.

what 'creator' do you teach? Christian God and Adam/eve? Allah? or Mormon's view of Jesus as the one who just 'organized' what was already there?  If you teach one, you have to teach them all.. because the one you are teaching, might not be the one some students believe in..

this is why I think this is where the church should play their role..

Why do you need to specify what creator? Allah/Christian God/Concepts of Jesus refer to the same creator anyways...

Because of the mass confusion of fifty kids screaming out "Amen!", "Praise Allah!", and "Hooya!" all at the same time?

So what?

So what?

I mean honestly though, why does it have to be narrowed down? It can't simply be presented as: an alternative theory for the initial existence of life is that of an intelligent creator

I'm not talking about a scientific unit on this, as obviously that's not possible... I'm not even sure if it should be TAUGHT, as in tested on, etc. But I'm not opposed to it being thrown out there as a possible solution, since we can't eliminate it as a possibility.

34. Please select all of the theories on the creation of the first primitive life forms:
A. Biopoesis
B. Intelligent creator
C. RNA Crystal development
D. Seeding
E. All of the above

If that was a test question... the answer would be E.

35. The theory of _______ states the first primitive life forms were brought into existence by a knowledgeable creator.
A. Evolution
B. Intelligent Design
C. Biopoesis

36. We have universally-accepted scientific theories that successfully explain the existence of the first primitive life forms.
A. False
B. True

Teaching it as a scientific theory? Of course not. But I will state again: the theory of an intelligent creator is not diametrically opposite of the theory of evolution. Teaching one doesn't eliminate the other. Offering it in a higher level class as a potential solution for the question isn't stamping crosses on everyone's foreheads--it encourages debate and critical thinking.

Unlike many other states, Texas does not ban workplace discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or marital status. But don't be alarmed; the Lone Star State is working on that whole civil liberties thing. Last week, Republican State Rep. Bill Zedler introduced HB 2454, a bill that would establish new workplace protections for proponents of intelligent design. Here's the key part:

An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.