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."
‘Having a form of godliness but denying its power…’ (2 Timothy 3:5)
"When we think of conversion, it is often with reference to some prodigal who turns his steps toward home; of an alcoholic who escapes the toils of his disease; of the profligate transformed-and so on. Such miracles do happen, but some conversions are of a different nature. A church member who has never doubted Christianity, who has always observed its traditions, suddenly makes a discovery-that Christianity actually works. That it is tremendously relevant. That when it is brought into existence as a way of viewing people and things; as a fortifier of the human spirit; as a source of inspiration and direction for all the business of life-it has a comprehensive adequacy. Such conversions do occur, and they are much to be desired."
"When Christ is known not as a form, but as a formidable, personal power, then he is his own evidence, his own compelling argument for faith."
"It is a supreme moment in a person's life when they wake up to the fact that the ideas of Jesus are absolutely true. At such a time they are persuaded that Christ is universal law. They see that he holds the cosmos together; that everything he is and all that he stands for is foundational, constitutional, unchangeable, eternal and immutable. They feel that they have not so much come into possession of something, but that they are possessed by what is greater than themselves, something to which their heart and mind quite naturally belongs."
"Only such a... realization---equips the soul to withstand the enormous batterings of antichrist."
"Many still voice their suspicions that the Christian way is not strong enough to stop the malignant advance of wickedness. But consider this-when a fire is burning and water is sprayed on it and the fire still rages, no-one thinks that water is useless for putting out fires-that fire can be quenched with water. So, despite the repeated and imperfect efforts at Christian fellowship and service, the long-range truth lies yet in Christ-in the patient, undiscouraged increase of his peace, love, hope, goodwill and moral excellence."
"May God enable you, as well as me, to proceed beyond form-to a practical knowledge of Christ's power."
It appears you are becoming agitated. Why? Can you prove that the philosophies of empiricism and materialism (the bedrocks of naturalism) are true scientifically? Not hardly - in fact, materialism is indefensible logically and practically. Care to defend them?
Therefore science CANNOT use god in ANY theory. ANY theory that uses GOD in it is either religious or philisophical, IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. DO YOU GET IT YET? Are we clear?
That is science by YOUR definition and YOUR philosophy. If you shout it, does it make it any more true? What YOU hold to be scientific and what is truly scientific are two different things. It so happens that a creator-God is sufficient to answer all of the observable evidence. In fact, God is a better and more logical answer than "chance" or "natural selection + random mutation". Can you tell me, SCIENTIFICALLY that is (chuckle) how the very first protein molecule came to assemble itself by spontaneous generation? Precisely by what natural process did this occur? Do you know? If you do not know, then evolution is NOT science because spontaneous generation is a prerequisite to evolution. You must have form before change can occur. It seems you are defeated by your own logic.
The fact that God can exist outside your knowledtge does prove that you could be wrong about the nature of science.
Ha! That description applies much better to evolutionists, for while they ascribe predictability to "true science," they offer only an unpredictable, undirected mass of atoms with which to operate.
Very amusing conceit. While there might be room for several gods out there, nothing establishes that your particular BrandName god is there. Isn't that the point of "faith"?
Your comment shows a lack of comprehension toward both my previous posts and this one in particular. Have I not said already there is a time and a place to keep the two disciplines (religion and science) completely distinct and separate?
It also shows there is some agreement between us, since both of us believe there are circumstances under which "never the twain shall meet."
At the same time, the distinct nature of these disciplines in no way confirms the objective validity of one or the other.
Of course, ultimately I take God's existence on faith. And you take his non-existence on faith. But God is the only explanation for my experience as a man, my hopes, dreams, the love I have for my family, the value of human life - these can only have meaning if God exists. If God doesn't exist friend, then you are no more valuable than a rock, and your thoughts and theories are irrational because they emanate from mere chemical processes in your brain (colliding atoms). Do you live like there is no God? Do you live as if love has no meaning, do you look at your family and think they have value or do you see them as rocks? You see, human experience and life are consistent with the existence of a personal infinite creator God, but is absolutely at odds with a naturalistic material universe. If you want to believe in naturalism and be consistent, then you must deny the mannishness of man - man becomes a meaningless rock, and his hopes, dreams, feelings, desires are mere matter in motion. Care to take this further?
For some reason, my mind's ear heard this as being delivered in Pee Wee Herman's voice.
Any of the proposed creator-Gods will do the same. How do you tell which one is the correct proposal? How do you use whichever one you choose for prediction?
Zeus always had an eye for the ladies. A good quality that many of the others lack.
All of these scientists believed in intelligent design. ID was the reigning scientific paradigm until 1860. The argument was bitterly fought in the scientific community, evolution won, and science has moved on. Proof that science, over time, can alter its worldview.
Now, to achieve a similar revolution in favor of ID, you must do more than simply point out gaps in observation and knowledge. You must tell an alternate story that has predictive power. For example, you must propose a hypothetical discovery or bit of evidence that is consistent with ID but not evolution. This must be something that is currently unknown or unfound. Not only must you predict the existence of something that has not yet been found, but you must offer a hypothesis explaining why you believe it exists and where you might expect to find it. You have to overcome 140 years of finding things that were anticipated by evolutionists.
Among the things not known to Darwin are: radioactivity, fission, fusion, genetics, DNA, mutations (as a broad category), tens of thousands of new fossils, all of which fit as expected into a time and structure line.
What you need is something like a serial or part number attached to each individual species -- something not part of the function of the organism.
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.