After a while you feel like Sisyphus but like that old chap you simply feel that that rock has to placed on top of that hill even if you know it will go downhill and you have to start from scratch ;)
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."
While I do not disagree with you, I argue that it is at least--or even more--important to present support for your own theory. Many (most readily identifiable on the creo side) are unable to discriminate between the two.
Thanks for taking time to spell out briefly your philosophical take on the questions. I don't see anything in there that strikes me as wildly unreasonable.
There's a bit of a nub that comes into the picture, though, and that is how we attach the moral equivalent of " good" to freedom, and the moral equvalent of "bad" to slavery. This is done with a great amount of consistency throughout history.
It is it really fair to say that Stalin was "wrong" in taking away other people's rights if the moral standard is rendered from each human "existing as his own entity?" In that case ""One man's freedom is another man's slavery" and there's really no need to be concerned about it.
What? Somebody needs to tell you about Last Thursday-ism.
It is a difficult question that is tough to answer, but I don't think that anybody will argue against it. It is self-evident, maybe? It is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. Freedom is "good".
"One man's freedom is another man's slavery"
This point however isn't fair. There is no "freedom/slavery" pendulum. One man's freedom does not necessarily mean another's slavery. It is immoral to infringe on others' rights, and Stalin definetely fit that bill. Everybody has this absolute right...
I'm confused. Are you saying that slavery has always been considered bad? What is consistent here?
To get to what you believe, you have to be so selective in what you take from science as to put the result totally at odds with science. That same link cites quite a number of problems with flood geology.
Real geology shows a complex and very long history for geographic features, as per this (hypothetical case) example. Catastrophically formed features may exist, but they're typically sandwiched between and among ordinary sediments that took a long time each to form. (They also represent periods of deposition separated by long periods in which no deposition, probably even erosion, took place.) Your Colorado Plateau redwall limestone is no exception (and AFAIK nobody but ICR thinks it formed in a flood).
That's a far cry from saying inalienable rights exist because we can defend them.
No one here made that claim. - See my rebuttal to your mistake.
If man is "endowed" with these rights by virtue of a Creator - which is what our forefathers held, wrote out, and defended - then these rights exist apart from our ability to even recognize or defend them.
Exactly my original point, except that a 'creator' is not needed to make that point valid. -- Mans self evident reason & free will are the basis of our rights.
No. I'm saying that throughout history mankind has generally, i.e. with some consistency, attached negative moral connotations to slavery. To be sure, moral definitions are fuzzier than math and science, but I would predict, if there is a God who made the universe, there would be a great many consistencies even in what humankind perceives to be "right and wrong."
Well, as far as I know it formed after the universe cooled down some time after the Big Bang. The heavier elements (metals to astronomers) were formed much later in stars.
Since I'm no physicist I'm not that informed about the early stages of the universe, so I think that our Physicist can give you a more conclusive answer.
However, I thought the original question whas "where does wind come from?".
All you did was pretend there is a distinction between "depends on" and "derives from." If you care to tell me how these two differ I might consider whether what you've presented is really a "rebuttal."
Ha! Great graphic. I agree much has been repeated around here, and even find myself repeating arguments if not in writing at least in my head. We're all kidding ourselves if we think a great problem will be solved for the world on this thread.
OTOH, I would hope we are slightly ahead of Sisyphus, maybe taking one step forward, and .9999999999 steps back.
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.