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."
Hee hee. Darwin died in 1882. The Bolshevik revolution was 1917. But hey, why let some simple facts interefere with dogma?
Creationist. Many of them come down with Holy Warrior Syndrome.
BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.That one got pretty silly.-- gore3000
If gore made a mistake adding 3 + 5 he would probably brazen it:
1) You're an evo materialist atheist and who cares what you think?
2) Three plus five is nine for very large values of three, five, or both.
3) The real point is that I've already refuted everyhthing you've ever said or thought in your life and you're just making a distraction.
I really don't see how the assumption that "God made it so" changes the reality of what exists. What difference does it make if one says "God made it so," and another says "No, He didn't. There is no such thing as God?" Do either of these points of view change reality and how we learn about it? What's the big deal?
So it took time for Darwin's buddies to get their bullsh*t together and revolt. But hey, why let cause and effect interfere with pre-conceived notions?
I see absolutely no necessity of teaching a particular creation "story." Why do you fabricate such a necessity?
I've noticed that g3k, despite attributing all evil in the world to godless scientists, has not jumped into the discussion of how thousands of years of slavery was justified by (numerous and explicit) references to the Bible.
I suspect that even some evolutionists are uncomfortable with the notion that morality also evolves.
Because it is. "God (or any other higher intelligent power you care to call it) did it" by definition is religious.
Besides supporting yourself with a circular argument, you assume that all notions of intelligence entail religion. That is not true. Religions by definition ascribe certain phemonena to a divine person or persons. Intelligence does not have to ascribe its existence to any kind of personhood, does it?
'Unknown' Fester? We have a tradition, -- separation of church & state. If we must have state supported schools, they must avoid teaching religious theory.
Well, they don't.
Well, they try, -- as they should. That's common sense, fester.
And why must creation theory by definition be "religious?" Is it just because so many people who hold to different religions also happen to believe in creation?
Because creational theory is based on matters of faith? Observable facts point to evolutionary theory.
Please prove to me that creationism must absolutely entail religion.
Not possible to 'prove' , as you well know.
----------------------------
"Indeed, -- why would anyone want the state to teach religion in public schools?"
Because, in case you haven't noticed, 90% of the general public believes relgion to be a natural part of existence. The general public pays schools to teach from what is commonly understood and observed by mankind.
How ludicrous to believe that even a majority can agree on what is 'commonly understood' in religious matters. - Much less 90%. - Amusing comment.
The most common and reasonable assumption to make about existence is that it did not just whip itself up out of nothing. Public schools can treat of religious subjects with ease, and they do. The teach both evolution and creation as possible viewpoints and let students choose for themselves what to believe. At least public schools that know what education is.
The founders wisely seperated church/state functions. State funded schools must do the same.
-----------------------------
"You do [entrust your children to the state]? Why?"
Because the state has been able to supply teachers who are better quailified than myself to impart the knowledge needed to be citizens who can function to the benefit of themselves and mankind.
You rely on the state to supply better teachers? - good grief.
This authority does not derive from the state, but from myself as a parent, and ultimately my authority and accountability as a parent derives from GOD. To the extent public schools depart from teaching necessary educational fundamentals I must take issue with their purpose. In fact, whose idea was public school education anyway? Probably some dumbass evolutionist who thought it smart to explain away the obvious to anyone with anything other than a wood block between their ears.
Reversing yourself on public/state schools? - A few lines above you defend them.
--------------------------
". . . the FF paid political lip service to a 'God' . .
This is a truly unhealthy assessment of the place of religion in the lives of our forefathers.
Now it's somehow "unhealthy" to see politicans as they really are? Get a grip.
They were willing to give up their lives for what they believed and wrote, and they understood, plainly and simply, that a government derived from the people must have it's foundation in a higher principle of rights derived from Divine Providence.
Your opinion on where rights derive from was NOT shared by all of the FF's, -- nor is now, by your neighbors. Thus, -- religious/state separation, as per the constitution. Try to learn to live with this fact, fester.
They also understood that the history of religions and religious persecution did not allow for a government established by the people to favor one religious teaching over another.
My point exactly. -- Thanks.
You make this statement with confidence, and it sounds very plausible. But, as I've introduced in a couple of recent posts, why do we assume that just because intelligence exists, religion and personhood must be attached to it? Can it be scientifically or logically proven that intelligence necessitates religion or philosophy?
Even if God is an intelligent designer, there is no reason not to study the design.
In a nutshell, the crevo threads all revolve around the following problem: Science started out with the intention of studying God's handiwork. Even Islam considered science to have this intention. Until about 1800, science had intelligent design as its fundamental paradigm. Then trouble erupted in geology, because the detailed study of strata didn't support the flood story. Over the next hundred years evidence accumulated for an earth that was much older than the age calculated through the Genesis geneology.
The age of the earth problem did not trouble many theologians until Darwin suggested an alternate story for the history of living things. The key problem with Darwinism is not that things change, but that there is no direction to the change -- the living system has free will, so to speak. Apparently it is OK for people to have free will, but not for the universe as a whole. You can see this problem most clearly in the desperate posts of f.Christian, which while syntactically disorganized, clearly display the fear that life (assuming evolution) has no direction and (therefore) no meaning. This is the fear that drives these debates.
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.