Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[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."

[Fester Chugabrew]

"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."

Are you suggesting that "pure curiousity" is the antithesis of indoctrination?

[Fester Chugabrew]

"And Cardinals Ximenez and Richelieu. And Leopold of Belgium. And Ian Paisley. And the Taliban."

Have all these carried out their ideologies under the banner of creationism? I think not. But the connection between evolutionist ideolgies and communist ideologies is fairly well documented. Of course, I encourage you to document the connections between the crazy fellows referenced above and creationism.

[viaveritasvita]

Well, that's certainly unusual! Are you referring to yourself as a small man who casts a long shadow!??

[Fester Chugabrew]

"The two ideas were and are entirely unrelated."

So you believe there is no connection between evolutionism and communism whatsoever?

[Condorman]

In post 1963 viaveritasvita posted this concerning the "Christianity" of the Third Reich:

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.

Of what does that remind you?

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . and while they may exhibit commonality in terminology . . ."

Interesting, how when comminality exists in fossils etc. evolutionists are quick to draw lines and conclude relationships. Then suddenly they abandon this when it comes to commonalities of terminology.

[Gargantua]

What js666 seems to ignore in his/her rants against the references to slavery in the Bible, Exodus and Leviticus in particular, is that even the Israelites were at many points in Biblical history, slaves.

God Himself delivered them into bondage as slaves for their disobedience, and then delivered them from slavery after their broken repentence, a number of times.

In recorded periods of drought and famine in the ancient world, slaves were among that portion of the population who remained fed, clothed, and housed, while others (particularly the nomadic wanderers) starved and died.

During these times, the Israelites being slaves saved them from much harsher fates suffered by other free peoples whose nations and cultures no longer exist.

The biggest objection I have to js' tripe is his/her insitence on challenging God, and assuming that he/she has the intellectual wherewithal to suggest a better mousetrap than that which God (Who breathed life into his/her putrid know-nothing soul) is gloriously the author of.

When puffed-up snake farts like this poppinjay start spewing their phlegm on the internet, our indulging them in discourse only provides them with a bigger soapbox from which to bellow their flatulence in opposition to all that is right, just, and true.

But, at the same time, I do treasure the patience that many like you are blessed with.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Of what does that remind you?"

It reminds me of something I've known for a long time. Than man is capable of making up any excuse possible to justify his own illusions.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Jim Jones was also a communist. This fact is irrelevant to the validity of Christianity.

We're not talking about "validity" here. We're talking about a relationship. Please answer my question. Do you believe there is no relationship whatsoever between evolutionism and communism?

[Condorman]

Words are man-made symbols. Fossils are not. I have trouble believing the distinction escapes you.

[viaveritasvita]

Thank you for reminding me of the slavery of the Israelites and for generally coming to my aid! Thank you also for the compliment, altho I admit I've about 5 seconds of patience and charm left! hehehe

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . so [Hitler] claimed portions of [Christianity] . . . "

What? And he put his ideology under the banner of creationism? I think not.

[general_re]

Of course, I encourage you to document the connections between the crazy fellows referenced above and creationism.

Creationism, per se, no. Biblical Christianity, certainly. Ximenez was the Grand Inquisitor of Spain from 1499 onward - ironically, he was one of the more "liberal" fellows to occupy the office, which would explain why "only" a few hundred thousand were burned at the stake during his reign. Offenses such as possessing books banned by the Grand Inquisitor were punishable by death for heresy, for example - along with the usual expulsion of Jews and Moors and so forth. Contrast Torquemada for an object lesson in brutality, if you like. Richelieu's excesses in crushing the Huguenots are well-documented, as are his notions of crime and punishment - "the ends justify the means" was originally formulated by Richelieu, for example.

Part of Leopold's justification for his adventures in the Congo was "Christianizing" the savages. More than one million of them died under his reign, worked to death as slaves. Perhaps as many as five million - nobody's really sure. It was the closest thing the nineteenth century saw to genocide. Adam Hochsberg's book "King Leopold's Ghost" is a very good look at the Belgian Congo in the latter half of that century.

Ian Paisley...well, old Ian is still with us, fomenting some of the worst, most vicious bigotry in the modern world. A Google search ought to reveal what Ian's particular bag is.

Christianity is, without a doubt, drenched in blood, historically speaking. Evolution, or something like it, was taken up by communists and other not-very-nice people, so therefore it is false. Obviously, by your logic, we can also therefore infer that Christianity is false, right? Considering the sorts of people that have attached themselves to it, after all...

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Words are man-made symbols. Fossils are not. I have trouble believing the distinction escapes you."

And I have trouble understanding why logic should be applied differently to either one. What? Are fossils more deserving of logic?

[viaveritasvita]

As you probably know (but I loved your response!), Condo is, I think, referring to that ridiculous Scotsman thang! Let me get this straight: If someone claims one thing, then, later, when other evidence is revealed which indicates the claim is bogus, one cannot re-evaluate the original claim!?

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . will there be a retraction . . .?

Good heavens. A major work from a major communist was nearly dedicated to Darwin's Origin of Speicies and yet a connection between the two ideologies supposedly does not exist? A bigger stretch than the fossil record, to be sure.

I've retracted things on this thread before, but in this case it will take more convincing evidence than you've provided, even with your links.

[PatrickHenry]

So you believe there is no connection between evolutionism and communism whatsoever?

They both appeared in the same generation; but one didn't cause the other. This is historically obvious, given the timetable I posted earlier. Marx was a published communist theoretician years before Darwin published Origin of the Species. Once both ideas were released into the world, other men read them. Some read one and were influenced, some the other, some both. Some ignored it all. There are probably some professors who even teach both. So what?

It's known that after Darwin became famous, Marx wanted to dedicate some of his later work to him (Das Capital), but I think Darwin paid no attention to Marx. If that's what you're hanging your hat on, it's not very much. Marx had been working on his economic ideas years before evolution was published (like the labor theory of value), and he was probably just trying to add some luster to his work by using Darwin's name.

[Condorman]

Do you believe there is no relationship whatsoever between evolutionism and communism?

Quite honestly I've never studied the relationship. I've heard the Soviet communist regimes described in many ways: brutal, violent, ultimately doomed to failure, intolerant of dissent, corrupt, evil, and so forth, but only in the past several years while participating on these threads have the Creationists alerted me to "evolutionist."

Two things have always struck me. First, these accusations are generally poorly supported and factually ambiguous. And second, even if true, they have nothing to do with the validity of the theory itself.

Anything can be twisted to evil ends. Devil, scripture and all that whatnot. How do you respond to the observation I made, that "survival of the fittest" is curiously at odds with basic communist philosophy?

[longshadow]

Are you referring to yourself as a small man who casts a long shadow!??

Why no, but thanks for asking.

[viaveritasvita]

"Evolution in the meaningful sense implies big changes, like a fish turning into a person. Do the small changes we observe over time [i.e. taller than our ancestors; aging] add up to the big changes needed by evolution? Did a single-celled organism become a marine invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal, then an ape-like ancestor, then a person? These truly big changes must have occurred if evolution [is correct].

Try to imagine what must happen to turn a cell into an invertebrate, or a worm into a fish, or a fish into an amphibian, etc. List the structural changes needed. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source. Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. One the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking too much. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed.

Listing all the differences between a fish and an amphibian, or a reptile and a bird, or reptile and mammal helps to clarify the immensity of evolution's task. Not only are there skeletal changes, but think of the totally new organs needed, different reproductive systems, altered respiratory and cardiovascular make-up, thermal schemes and on and on...

The highly complex information laden DNA code cannot yet even be read by today's genomists. How could it have written itself by chance mutation or genetic recombination?

Surely, some things simply cannot be."

John D. Morris, Ph.D.