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."
Oh, for the record, I never claimed my statement was an honest mistake. I said I wasn't a liar. Here is the text from post 1922. I know this is asking quite a bit, but you might try reading it carefully:
You're going to have quite a time climbing out of this hole, my amusing little demagogue.
No kidding? Which ones?
Because they want to pit religious people against each other. It's called divide and conquer, the method of all tyrants and oppressors of the truth.
[Scene of PH, tears running down his rosy cheeks, happily accepting the award.]
I want to thank my producer, my director, my parents, my friends, my fellow evos, my handlers at Darwin Central, the moderators ... but most of all I want to thank VadeRetro. I couldn't have done it without you, Vade!
I -- I'm totally disarmed. I'm so embarrassed at my silly jealousy.
[Exit sharpening dagger]
The original post claims that evolution is a fact. I have amply shown that it is not a fact and that evolutionists know that it is not a fact and that is why they refuse to give scientific proof of evolution or to discuss evidence disproving evolution. It is not about religion.
It is interesting that while evolutionists constantly attack Christianity they cannot find anything wrong with either Christ or the Ten Commandments.
There are no more mountains to climb. I think I'll devote the rest of my life to raising funds for my memorial library.
Seems to me that there is a big difference between the statement of ID that something was intelligently designed and the use of the antrhopic principle by materialists . ID bases its statement on scientific observations which point to the almost infinte impossibility of something not being designed. Materialists claim the antrhopic principle in spite of the scientific evidence for randomness and lack of design.
There is something else wrong with the anthropic principle - subjectivism. Eventually it relies on the idea that if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it fall it does not make a sound. This is of course ridiculous and scientifically disprovable.
You can state that the moon is made of green cheese also, but that does not make it true.
What's more, Gore-be-tron™ is clearly in a bad mood today, now that his pal "medved," er, I mean, "piltdownpig," oops, I mean "sallymag," oh dear, I mean "titanmike," um, make that "nanrod," uh-oh, I mean "tallyho1946," rats, make that "annflounder" got banned from FR (for the seventh time).
No wonder he's having a temper tantrum.
You are within sight of a truly astonishing revelation. I wonder if you'll have the courage to follow it though? Could it be that a paradox does not truly exist?
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.