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."
So does acknowledging that "chance" is responsible for the existence of everything. Evolution is every bit as much an article of faith as religion. Evolution has yet to provide convincing evidence of a mechanism that can cause change. They are very well able to point out processes and examples of change, but they cannot possibly give evidence as to WHY these processes happen the way they do.
Furthermore, a dictionary definition of 'religion" does not argue for or against the necessity to make creationism a religion. Just because all things might be created does not mean a "Person" had to do it. Right?
The Laws of Nature themselves give evidence of design, they are still in effect, and they are easily predictable and observed. Same with the processes of growth and change in the human body. Let's try applying some mathematics of probability to these fields of obervation and see if we get consistent results, shall we? Let's predict whether atoms will retain the same attributes for the next year or so, shall we? What keeps atoms that way? Can you explain this by some "chance" mechanism, or will you insist that I and the rest of mankind believe it is all by chance and call us all fools?
If your existence were completely a posteriori you would be a less significant than a fossil.
The mere existence of physical laws already implies design. Do you think it is reasonable to believe substance came first, and then the laws to govern it? Maybe you do, but most people would think the laws of nature came first, and then the substance by which they are governed, or perhaps, that both arrived simultaneously.
"Science and religion do not mix, . . ."
Sure they do. They mixed very well with Newton and Galileo and the mixture proved to be of great benefit to learning. It was only recently, at least comparatively so in history, that certain self-described "geniuses" assumed the two must be kept completely separate.
I'd rather discard three centuries of the so-called "science" known as evolution than six millenia of simple common sense observation and reporting from those who know the universe did not come about by chance.
"You want to teach your children creationism/ID then go ahead, but don't expect our public schools to teach religious dogma for you, that is YOUR job, not thiers."
Actually, I think it is time for evolutionists to set up their own little schools with their own money, remain divested of all references to God, and monkey around for the rest of us to view in amusement. Public schools need teachers and students with a little common sense, not people who doggedly cling to the belief that everything around us is a grand accident.
When history has run it's course, evolutionist thought will be proven to be little more than a gross aberration.
The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut
Since when do the religious preface their adherance to Creationism with, "this is the best model we have to date"?
Just because all things might be created does not mean a "Person" had to do it. Right?
So a turtle could have done it, eh?
There was another one you were asking for but I still can't think of it.
Maybe we should explain the Eschoir reference for the newbies. "Pesky Esky" is the most-frequently-banned person in history. He founded several anti-Freeper forums and generally mounted a dirty tricks campaign that ended only when he lost a messy lawsuit. He is the standard by which disruptors are measured.
Not a road you'd want to go down.
Both views are manifestly dogmatic. Evolutionists do it with more subtlety, filling their books with unqualified declaratives and leaving words like "best model" as a footnote. Creationists are on the defensive, challenging and questioning evolutionists, especially since the former have seen fit to enforce their views via sole reign in the classroom. Dogmatism is not a bad thing unless you happen to be on the wrong side of reality.
"So a turtle could have done it, eh?"
Last I saw of Tommy Turtle he was creeping up on the finish line. His ever-so-confident competitor, the Hare, was asleep in his own world, about to lose the race. No, the turtle didn't do it, but he was on the right track.
He's got us all playing "Who's medved?"
"annflounder" -- banned.
Ooops. That was an oversight; meant to include her in the "Hall of Shame"
There is also another ommission, but not by accident. Shortly after "medved" was banned in September, he reappeared under another screen name that I can't recall. It was obvious that it was Ted, and in fact (if recollection serves me) the "new" poster posted the exact same SPAM that "medved" got banned for posting after he was asked to link it, and refused. The MODS not only banned that incarnation of Ted, they obliterated all the posts made under that name; hence the difficulty in finding the name.
If anyone remembers it, please post it so that we can keep the "Ted Holden Multiple Screen Name Memorial Hall of Shame" up to date and complete.
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.
