Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
By WILL SENTELL
wsentell@theadvocate.com
Capitol news bureau
High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.
If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana.
Alabama approved its policy six or seven years ago after extensive controversy that included questions over the religious overtones of the issue.
The change approved Tuesday requires Louisiana education officials to check on details for getting publishers to add the disclaimer to biology textbooks.
It won approval in the board's Student and School Standards/ Instruction Committee after a sometimes contentious session.
"I don't believe I evolved from some primate," said Jim Stafford, a board member from Monroe. Stafford said evolution should be offered as a theory, not fact.
Whether the proposal will win approval by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on Thursday is unclear.
Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition.
"I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said.
"I don't think state boards should dictate editorial content of school textbooks," he said. "We shouldn't be involved with that."
Donna Contois of Metairie, chairwoman of the committee that approved the change, said afterward she could not say whether it will win approval by the full board.
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.
The issue surfaced when a committee of the board prepared to approve dozens of textbooks used by both public and nonpublic schools. The list was recommended by a separate panel that reviews textbooks every seven years.
A handful of citizens, one armed with a copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," complained that biology textbooks used now are one-sided in promoting evolution uncritically and are riddled with factual errors.
"If we give them all the facts to make up their mind, we have educated them," Darrell White of Baton Rouge said of students. "Otherwise we have indoctrinated them."
Darwin wrote that individuals with certain characteristics enjoy an edge over their peers and life forms developed gradually millions of years ago.
Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis.
White said he is the father of seven children, including a 10th-grader at a public high school in Baton Rouge.
He said he reviewed 21 science textbooks for use by middle and high school students. White called Darwin's book "racist and sexist" and said students are entitled to know more about controversy that swirls around the theory.
"If nothing else, put a disclaimer in the front of the textbooks," White said.
John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review. Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.
Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.
Linda Johnson of Plaquemine, a member of the board, said she supports the change. Johnson said the new message of evolution "will encourage students to go after the facts."
Now what do you think?
It's my concept of why all the creation/ID (im)probability computations (usually for processes nobody understands in the first place) are fallacious in the extreme. For that matter, however, many processes in nature are indeed so chaotic as to be intractable to straighforward analysis. Science handles this "chaos" just fine. The creationist attitude, OTOH ...
So which do you want? Predicatability based on laws that were established from the start, or laws that developed themselves out of a state of total unpredictability? Guess which of these two makes most sense to real scientists, common man, and the Bible?
Shrug, give up, cite any difficulties and any "improbabilities" as proof of the supernatural! The whole approach is and forever will be useless, whether or not you call it science.
If this is true, then please explain briefly how these things came to be both universal and absolute. Or did they start out that way?
Is morality predictable? I mean, how does donh know for sure the slaughters conducted by Hitler and Stalin were wrong in the objective sense? What does he use as a standard by which to judge? Could we possibly predict what most people perceive to be "right" and "wrong"? Where do we get this kind of sense? Or do we just act the way we do because that's the way the marbles fell out of the jar?
So you think it's blasphemous if people claim that the term "God" can also mean the gods of the sun or fertility rites or reason or rain, etc.?
The questions still remain: given the "balancing act bewteen particles," was the resulting universe as we know it a predicatable result? Was this "arising" of conservation laws completely unguided? If so, does it remain this way to this day?
Well if you want to take the high road... I don't have to respect your God, just you, which I will. You may not see the difference, but there is a difference. I don't believe your God exists. Do you respect pagan gods? Or Zeus? If I was a believer in the Norse god of Thor, would you pay respects to him? And do not lie, you wouldn't.
This is a debate on evolution vs creationism. Part of a debate is poking holes in the other side's theories. Many creationists, when engaged in this debate, will claim that evolutionists are bashing their religion. It is fundamental in attempting to learn from and 'win' a debate to make intellectual attacks on the other side. Do not join the debate if it hurts your feelings when a member of the opposing side attacks your theories...
If this is true, then why insist that the definition of science entails predicting results that we can fit into a theory? How are you going to separate "chance" from "predicatability" and still be a scientist?
Yeah, apparently ;)
This is not, and has not been the issue. The issue is whether common sense, based on the observation of constancy and predictability throughout history, may posit the supernatural as a possibly true explanation for why things are the way they are. Evolutionists can do no better. Eventually the must also make their own leap(s) of faith.
Is morality predictable? I mean, how does donh know for sure the slaughters conducted by Hitler and Stalin were wrong in the objective sense? What does he use as a standard by which to judge?
Good questions that are difficult to answer. I will make the attempt, you will most likely disagree, and nothing will be solved except that my theories will be more reasoned out. Some of this may look like paraphrasing from various philosophers that I have dabbled in and agreed with on key points. Rough draft:
Man exists as his own entity. The right to individual freedom is absolute, for without this freedom he is a slave. Man has free will, which is not granted upon him by any entity but present in all living things. These rights can be taken away by an offending party, but are nonetheless rights in a universal sense. When men come together and form a society, the goal should be a preservation of these rights. Together, but still individually free, they can more easily ensure that others cannot infringe upon their moral right to freedom. When defending one's own rights, there is a safety in numbers (hence the conflict between individual right based capitalism versus communal rights based communism). This is what sets our living rights apart from the living rights of animals who still maintain free will in a loose sense (and in many species do form small societies). These rights exist with or without a supernatural being. If somehow it was proven tomorrow (impossible) that a supernatural being did not exist, chaos would not ensue. Animals would still have their rights to free will (in a loose form) and humans would still continue to fight against anything that took away their absolute right to free life...
Stalin took the rights of others away in millions of ways= immoral
Hitler = ditto, immoral
And yes I do believe that Hussein has infringed upon the people of the world, out country, and his own country with his actions which make him immoral. Actions against him are therefore moral. Morality is predictable.
Anyway, something like that. You put me on the spot...
That's a far cry from saying inalienable rights exist because we can defend them. If man is "endowed" with these rights by virtue of a Creator - which is what our forefathers held, wrote out, and defended - then these rights exist apart from our ability to even recognize or defend them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.