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."

[forsnax5]

There is also another ommission...

Piltdownpig.

[VadeRetro]

Piltdownpig.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Piltdownpig, banned.

[PatrickHenry]

Piltdownpig.

Ah yes. How soon we forget.

[longshadow]

Piltdownpig.

BINGO!

Very nicely done. Thanks for completing the record of known "medved" clones:

"medved," "piltdownpig," "sallymag," "titanmike," "nanrod," "tallyho1946," and "annflounder"......

Seven incarnations of a banned Freeper... that's definetely getting into "Eschoir" territory. I wonder if FR will have to sue the Tedster to get him to stop, just as they did with "Eschoir."

The irony is that Ted Holden apparently would threaten legal action against ISP's on whose servers were websites that derided his material and poked fun at his behavior on the 'net. There's a web site out ther that still has one of his threatening e-mails, last iI knew.....

Once again, thanks for providing the name of the missing "medved" clone.....

[Junior]

Of course, there's always the possibility that Gary Boldwater is also a medved clone:

"Beam Me Up Scotty" Anti-gravity: Fact or Fiction?

Note the whole equating of gravity with electromagnetic phenomena -- a hoary medved claim...

[gore3000]

(TO F.Christian)your refusal to acknowledge the basic definition of communism is just tedious

Actually it is you that is being dishonest. Christianity is based on charity. Communism is based on greed. Greed is the opposite of charity.

[tpaine]

Tpaine, By removing "by the creator", the sentence begs the question by whom or by what are all men endowed?

Nope, we are inately endowed with rights by our own reasoning ability. Our free will is a self evident truth.

Can all men reason? Can all men reason the same? As we found with the Clintons we do not all reason the same or as I would say with Rev Al Sharpton I don't think he has any reason in him at all.

I'm sure the rev-al has the same opinon of our reasoning abilites. - Doesn't change the fact of our ALL having inate inalienable rights.

The truth is that the Founding Fathers were calling upon a higher authority, than themselves and mankind in total, to justify their actions.

Yep, as I said, it never hurts to hedge your bets by asking the 'almighty' for help.

As made obvious by their declaration King George reasoned as did many of his countrymen both in Britain and the colonies that we did not posses those rights. The British Monarchy has run contrary to what other men have thought what were and were not God given rights more than once, as evidenced by the Magna Carta and Cromwell's running down of King Charles. It is the recognition of a higher authority that is the basis of all our law system also know as natural law.

Not at all. Simple reason tells us that if we wish to live in liberty, we must all have equal rights. -- No 'higher authority' is needed to grant them. - They are self evident in nature.

Without it then justice is simply a matter of force and not reason at all.

We make our own justice, protecting us all from force, by forming a constitutional free republic, and following its principles.

- 'Higher authority' is usually used by despotic forces to justify ignoring our constitution, imo.

[gore3000]

Gee, bud, you and yours have gotten more threads locked or pulled than we can shake a stick at.

It is your hypocrisy that is unbelievable. It is the evolutionists which constantly insult people and get threads locked. At least half the posts from evolutionists on this very thread are nothing but insults (and yours is one of them).

Medved got kicked off after months long campaign by evolutionists of constantly pushing the abuse button. This instance is the same also. You folk were campaigning against this titanmike for some hundred posts and who knows how many times you guys pushed the abuse button.

Further, the joy in all of you at having a poster silenced is ample proof of your fear of dissenting opinion and of opposing views and your desire to silence them by any means possible.

[longshadow]

Of course, there's always the possibility that Gary Boldwater is also a medved clone:

Let me stop the rumor mill here, before it gets a head of steam.

Sharing a belief in a few of the same theories (crack-pot as we may think them) does not a "medved" clone make...

there are ways to tell the real thing from coincidentally similar posters....

;-)

[tpaine]

Actually it is you that is being dishonest. Christianity is based on charity. Communism is based on greed. Greed is the opposite of charity.
2746 -g3k-

Christianities precept about being your brothers keeper is quite akin to, 'from each according to their abilities, to each acccording to their needs', -- granted?

[gore3000]

Science can still not explain gravity, child. It's not semantics, it's a fact.

Not true. Science cannot explain EVERYTHING about gravity (just like it cannot explain everything about everything), however gravity is a scientific fact and it is far more than a theory that is why we have the LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION> therefore my statement in the post you responded to is correct and your objections are purely semantic:

Semantics. Gravity is a scientific fact. An undeniable fact by even the most obtuse. Evolution is not a fact and it has never been observed in any scientific manner. Evolution proposes the tranformation of species, such has never been observed. Gravity proposes the pulling of a smaller mass towards a greater mass, this is observed on a daily basis by every human being on earth. So there are scientific theories which are absolutely true and evolution is not one of them.

Further, your claim that evolution is in any way observable is total bunk. Specifically the statement that:

We see organisms change in the wild and in the laboratory

Is a total lie and you cannot give a single example of any evolutionary transformation ever having been seen. Further, gravity can be observed any time, any place - just drop a penny. Evolution cannot be observed in any way and has never been observed. What this means is that evolution is not science, let alone a scientific fact. Gravity however is indeed science and is a scientific fact.

[PatrickHenry]

Since way back in post 1081, g3k has been asked: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?. Still no answer, except for dodges, evasions, excuses, and attempts to provoke a flame war (and thus an excuse to have the thread pulled).

It can't be very difficult for someone who has surveyed all Nobel Prize winning work and has declared that it all disproves evolution. An intellect of such sweeping power should be able to give us his answer. HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?.

[gore3000]

When someone takes an article whose heading is "The Definition Evolution Shell Game" and claims that it supports a definition which it calls misleading is an absolute liar, especially when he continues to insist that the article supports it after the dishonesty has been pointed out. -me-

You continue to try to deny that this site did not support the phony definition of evolution you posted. Your total dishonesty in continuing to attack me for pointing it out shows you are an absolute liar. Here's the facts not the garbage rhetoric (oh, and BTW - I was abslolutely justified in not accepting your 'explanation' that it was an 'honest mistake' as your subsequent posts have shown you to be an unashamed liar):

To: Condorman

Sounds like "evolution lite" to me; a definition you've chosen to adopt for yourself.-fester chugabrew-

This is not my definition. Even Creationists use it. From here:

Dishonestly turning around the whole meaning of the quote by deleting the words I have underlined. What this shows Condorman, is that you are a liar and very dishonest.

The Evolution Definition Shell Game

The term evolution often takes on several meanings in today's scientific circles, often in very misleading ways. A 1999 undergraduate college textbook on Biology states: "Evolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes. Because such a change in a gene pool is evolution on the smallest scale, it is referred to more specifically as microevolution"
1817 posted on 12/31/2002 5:51 PM PST by gore3000




To: Condorman

The website I cited is a Creationist website that agrees with the definition of evolution I posted:

Not only are you a liar, you are a shameless liar. With the post showing that the site calls the definition you gave MISLEADING (which you dishonestly did not post) and with the article named THE EVOLUTION SHELL GAME you dare to say that the site supports your definition? You have no shame. The post showing your dishonesty is: Post# 1817
1897 posted on 01/01/2003 9:52 AM PST by gore3000

[Condorman]

First of all, you've never answered the question as to whether there are more than two possibilities with respect to the universe as we experience it, namely 1.) it exists by accident, and 2.) it exists by design.

Do you equate "by accident" with "undirected"?

[gore3000]

Thanks for reminding me that the New Year is the time for giving out awards for the previous year.

The Grima-Wormtongue Award for 2002, given for reaching the ultimate heights in hypocrisy, dishonesty, half-truths, propaganda, semantics, sophistry, vile insults, sliming, abusiveness, and all around despicable behavior is hereby awarded to:

PATRICK HENRY

For the absolutely untiresome work on these threads exemplyfying the qualities for which this dishonor is awarded.

BTW - there were quite a few other evolutionists in the running for this award but their names have been withheld to protect the guilty.

[gore3000]

in the real world, there is no debating the facts of evolution...

Alas, we finally agree on something! There is no debating the 'facts' of evolution because there are none! That is why evolutionists need to resort to insults, rhetoric and religion bashing.

[gore3000]

Creation/ID is not science

ID is certainly science that is why scientists consider both the Universe and Life to have been intelligently designed and why developmental biologists call the development process of a human from conception to birth a program.

[gore3000]

I've been trying to get this through to gore3000's head for about 1500 posts. Suprisingly, he doesn't seem to want to come on board. He firmly believes that if he asks people on free republic to answer an evolution/abiogenesis/beginning of the universe question and they do not know, then he has disproved any scientific theory related to said question and proved his own creationist theories....

And it was refuted way back when but you are too dishonest to admit that it has been and refuse to address the points made there which were that since evolutionists are unable to defend evolution on a scientific basis their claim that their adherence to evolution is based on science is totally false. Further, that since the evolutionists here certainly have access to much information from the internet, from books, articles, etc. (and indeed some CLAIM to be scientists themselves) the fact that they are unable to defend their theory against some fairly basic facts disproving it shows that evolution is certainly not a fact as they constantly claim and more likely not worth the electrons with which they defend it so vehemently.

[Condorman]

The term evolution often takes on several meanings in today's scientific circles, often in very misleading ways. A 1999 undergraduate college textbook on Biology states: "Evolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes. Because such a change in a gene pool is evolution on the smallest scale, it is referred to more specifically as microevolution". This type of "evolution" is widely accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike and is not in dispute.
Source: EvolutionFairyTale.com

What does the phrase "not in dispute" mean, please? Why did you omit it?

[PatrickHenry]

... Award for 2002, given for reaching the ultimate heights in hypocrisy, dishonesty, half-truths, propaganda, semantics, sophistry, vile insults, sliming, abusiveness, and all around despicable behavior ... hereby awarded to: PATRICK HENRY
2755 posted on 01/04/2003 2:38 PM EST by gore3000

Hee hee! I must be doing a whole lot of things just right!