Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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 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.

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."

"By making guesses in such a manner, and regarding detailed material evidence, such that their likelihood can be assessed by technical means, so that the potential to refute them exists."

This is no different than the processes engaged by scientists who hold creationist assumptions.

And where would I find these scientist's critically refereed papers?

By ruling out even the remote possibility that a single divine being may be involved in all that is observed, those who hold an entirely materialists view of the universe set up an unncessary dichotomy.

Well, fortunately, strict materialists are a rarity both in science and real life, so we needn't consult them. Nothing about scientific theories presently rule out God's intervention, and probably nothing ever will, as most scientists will tell you readily. Science is merely telling stories one can get a handle on to use and critically evaluate. You are welcome to tell stories about intervention in the material world by indetectable, immaterial beings, and I am free to point out that, however you may window dress that with the trappings of science, it ain't. Science is about evidence, and evidence is an unavoidably material sort of thing.

Philosophical materialists claim all you can see is all there is. Science does not make this claim. It merely confines it's efforts to things you can materially detect--because that's the nature of evidence.

Although I don't understand how they relate to the debate at hand and even though I, myself, have gone off the subject, I do thank you for the great quotes in your two previous posts. I would like to know the author(s) of the quotes. I checked out your profile and found many interesting things; I particularly liked this:

"The gospel is God's quest for humanity. God, seeking us; God, finding us; God, not willing to let us go.

Let me no more,
my comfort draw,
From my frail hold on thee.
In this alone rejoice with awe,
Thy mighty grasp of me!"

However, I noticed that nearly all the quotes contained in your profile are not attributed to anyone. Did you write them? It would lend more credence to the quotes you post and those in your profile if you give credit where credit is due. Personally, I rarely transfer quotes to my personal area that do not credit the author (but would like to transfer some of yours if you could provide authorship).

When one looks beyond the insults and such (difficult phraseology and visual manipulations) you have some good points.

Regarding the notion that Hitler and the Nazi's were Christians (as quoted, this time attributed to Freepers) – how utterly absurd!! Off the top of my head, I believe Hitler knew that, in order to accomplish his objectives, he had to deal with Christianity, so he claimed portions of it and tweaked it to suit his purposes. A perfect description of what Hank Hanegraaff (equip.org) calls "counterfeit Christianity," which is exponentially on the rise.

Regarding the post with definition of superstition...you do realize that evolutionists can just as easily use that definition against us?

Regarding whether or not someone is specifically an Ayn Rand atheist...I have no problem with Rand's contribution to the political discourse, but (obviously) I disagree with atheism.

I await an apology from you before commenting on anything further from you.

A good teacher does not stifle the inquiring mind with his/her own preconceived notions. That's not education. That's indoctrination.

A great deal of indoctrination is necessary to teach children what they need to know to become effective adults. Pure curiosity won't make a child memorize 30 spelling words every day, nor learn his multiplication tables. These attainments are a long-drawn out affair no child will pursue just to answer a few self-posed questions, modern educational theory to the contrary notwithstanding.

I know there is concern about the introduction of religion in public schools once creationism is given some thought. Frankly I'd rather have the camel's nose of religion under the tent of education than the horse's ass of evoultion sitting on education's face.

If you wish to abandon teaching science to pre-college kids, I can be pursuaded. I think it's largely a waste of time anyway. There time would be better spent on fundamentals. However, if you decide to teach science, than you should teach science as it stands--not some specially altered version that caters to some people's unscientific pre-dispositions. We keep religion out of secular, state-mandated schools for outstandingly good reasons. I don't wish to see my kids in a pitched battle with muslim kids over the use of the auditium for daily prayer.

It would have been just as easy to forbid homosexuality, adultery, greed, hate, you name it. But God's thoughts are not our thoughts, they aren't even in the same ballpark. God gave us free-will; mankind has chosen slavery (also known as bond-servant, especially in the OT, and, yes, both words would imply "property") for whatever reason. Here are two quotes I came across recently that may shed some light:

"This age-old question of 'Why is there suffering?' is as old as time. This question is asked not only by atheists and enemies of God, but also by bewildered Christians staggering under the burden of anguish...[But] If God were to eradicate all evil from this planet, He would have to eradicate all evil men. Who would be exempt? God would rather transform the evil man than eradicate him...If God were to remove all evil from our world (but somehow leave man here), it would mean that the essence of 'humanness' would be destroyed. Man would become a robot...man would lose his distinguishing mark: the ability to make choices. True love is founded upon one's freedom to choose to respond. Man could be programmed to do good, but the element of love would be lost." Billy Graham

Also:

"One says: 'I'd like to ask God why He allows poverty, famine, and injustice whwen He could do something about it.' The other says: 'I'm afraid God might ask me the same question.'" Unknown

Is it not conceivable that there is a master plan toward which all history is moving? Is it not possible that God teaches us all something in the struggle with slavery, poverty, injustice, hate, sexual immorality, etc? Perhaps God's nature and glory are reflected to others when we "do something" about these age-old problems.

Another thing:

"...we have to be fair and say that you have made mistakes which brought you to the place where you are now...we must not act as though God has led you (or me, when I have made a mess of things) into that mess. Yet, it does not mean that the Lord does not care for us when we make a mess of our lives, or that He cannot make something beautiful out of them." Francis A. Schaeffer

>>"Do you consider beating another human being to the point where he takes two days to get up 'proper treatment.'"<<

Said that way and disregarding God's nature as revealed in thousands and thousands of other Biblical verses, no. But you ignore the previous verse that states "If a man beats his slave and the slave dies as a result, he must be punished," and do not take into consideration the culture of that time (see a previous post of mine) not to mention that the fact is in this case the slave is alive! That the Israelites even had rules governing the proper treatment is amazing considering the times. Also, you ignore the fact that the Israelites were a holy nation, set apart from their pagan neighbors -- their behavior, while not perfect, was guided by God. This makes me think that perhaps there were times when punishment (by whatever means and as extremely rare as I believe it was in the Israelite nation) was required. Are you saying that a bondservant could do anything and not be punished? "A punishment too harsh is unfair; one too lenient is powerless to teach." There is much too much here for discussion in this forum!!

>>"Never mind that this may have been an improvement over previous standards."<<

Well, dadgumit!! The one and only time I might consider using the word "evolve" in a discussion with evolutionists, and I'm forbidden! Highly annoying! Here we may actually have a observable and repeatable example of behavior evolving from cruel to...well, less cruel, anyway, and its discussion is pre-empted!!! ARGH!!

This is totally random, but I think it may actually apply for several reasons to the path this thread has taken: I'm willing to bet lots that this is a quote from Ayn Rand (in a short novel, which name I've forgotten) and I'm reaching into memory bank: "That which is not permitted by the government is forbidden." Replace "government" with "God" and you have an idea of His system of governance and of the idea behind free-will (the complete opposite of Rand's quote). God gives us free-will, but it is wise to keep in mind the consequences (good or bad). I'm thinking "That which is not forbidden by God is permitted."

>>"The discussion began with the assertion that the Bible, and specifically the Old Testament, did not contain obsolete or incorrect information. So are these rules for the treatment of other human beings correct for all time?"<<

I honestly don't recall asserting this in exactly those terms, but I do believe the Bible to be the timeless Word of God (including the rules of the treatment of humans, in fact, especially so!). I actually think I made a few comments previously about the possibility that some things would be considered obsolete because of refrigeration and salt...?

Is this the statement to which you refer? If so, I do believe this:

>>"If the Bible was written by men, there would be all sorts of things on every page that made sense at the time but are now shown to be false."<<

PHEW!! I'm really fragmenting here and pooping out quickly -- I truly don't have the time to go into the depth required for this kind of discussion (one of the reasons I rarely post). Suffice to say that you and I have both given each other food for thought and that I wish we could sit down for an hour or two and exchange ideas.

In fact, I appreciate the exchange of ideas with everyone on this thread -- it was envigorating and challenging. Thank you!

Evolutionism exists and is widely recognized as a legitimate world view.

Won't wash. The evolution we are discussing concerns common descent of animal species. The "Evolutionism" you seem to be referring to is the social theory of cultural progression developed by Edward B. Tyler and expanded by Lewis Henry Morgan in the late 19th century. From here:

Karl Marx was struck by the parallels between Morgan’s evolutionism and his own theory of history. Marx and his co-worker, Friedrich Engels, devised a theory in which the institutions of monogamy, private property, and the state were assumed to be chiefly responsible for the exploitation of the working classes in modern industrialized societies. Marx and Engels extended Morgan’s evolutionary scheme to include a future stage of cultural evolution in which monogamy, private property, and the state would cease to exist and the “communism” of primitive society would once more come into being. How would you describe the relationship between evolutionism, communism, and the general welfare of the citizenry under the same? Would you say there is no relationship whatsoever?

I think you're reaching. At it's most basic level, the word evolution can be defined as "change over time." The Theory of Evolution we have been talking about is a part of biology specifically concerning common descent and speciation. This is a social theory, and while they may exhibit commonality in terminology, the meanings of the terms are dependent on the context.

Not to mention that the whole communism/evolution connection seems rather inconsistent from the get-go. "Survival of the fittest" is hardly a rallying cry for universal social and economic equality. If anything, it seems more appropriate to capitalism, if not outright anarchy.

I should also point out this, from the same site I reference above:

The evolutionism of Tylor, Morgan, and others of the nineteenth century is largely rejected today. For one thing, their theories cannot satisfactorily account for cultural variation - why, for instance, some societies today are in “upper savagery” and others in “civilization.” The “psychic unity of mankind” or “germs of thought” that were postulated to account for parallel evolution cannot also account for cultural differences. Another weakness in the early evolutionists theories is that they cannot explain why some societies have regressed or even become extinct. Also, although other societies may have progressed to “civilization,” some of them have not passed through all the stages. Thus, early evolutionist theory cannot explain the details of cultural evolution and variation as anthropology now knows them. Finally, one of the most common criticisms leveled at the nineteenth century evolutionists is that they were highly ethnocentric - they assumed that Victorian England, or its equivalent, represented the highest achievement of mankind.

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.