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."
Your point of view is non-rational. You can't get meaning from non-meaning. People either have intrinsic value or they don't. There is no in between.
First, lack of explanation is the rule in science, rather than the exception. Can you explain quantum intanglement? Does lack of knowledge make physics not a science?
Second, consciousness is not solely a property of humans.
Ummm, I don't think so. On what basis do you make such an outlandish statement. The law of statistical averages and science of probability comes into play here. -EXMARINE
I haven't been here long, but I do know not to get into an argument with Physicist (not that I disagree with anything he says). It is quite obvious to lurkers that he is of high intelligence and few can find flaws in his logic.
Certainly not. The excluded middle is only a fallacy in deductive arguments. Since this is explicitly an inductive, probibalistic argument, no fallacy is present.
I formed my opinion of our "God fearing" ancestors from listening to my grandparents tell about the old days.
No, I was not proposing anything from Georg Cantor. It would be difficult to discuss infinity though without also speaking of Kurt Gödel. But I digress...
To you there is no point in asking how the universe came to be. Hawking, Penrose, Rees and many others would not agree. Neither do I. But there is no requirement that you should see things the same way.
To you there is no rational reason to separate the universe and God. Some scientists are breaking the taboo by exploring consciousness - e.g. Penrose and Crick. As for me, I have every reason to separate the two because I know God exists. His Son and I are on a first name basis; I've walked with the Lord for more than 40 years now.
To you there is no evidence for God. I disagree. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. To me, there are many evidences. Personal knowledge is one, but there are physical evidences as well such as this late breaking piece that several on this thread have found interesting:
Big Bang Evidence Found – 5/2/2001
“The early universe is full of sound waves compressing and rarefying matter and light, much like sound waves compress and rarefy air inside a flute or trumpet,” explained Paolo deBernardis of the University of Rome La Sapienza, one of the members of the Balloon Observations of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation and Geophysics (BOOMERanG) team. “For the first time the new data show clearly the harmonics of these waves.”
Yes. Possible. There are infinite possibilities outside of that circle. Let us assume that you possess the same infinitely small circle of knowledge. Maybe slightly bigger, maybe slightly smaller, but regardless infinitely small. Now then, I ask you: Is it possible that God does not exist outside your circle of knowledge? Will you concede the same lack of understanding of the universe that I just did or are you divine in wisdom?
You seem to be making Judeo-Christianity the most important part of scientific discovery, am I correct in assuming this? Are you saying that China has never been more advanced technologically than the West A.D.? Are you also implying that B.C. Greco Roman Europe wasn't the most scientifically advanced culture in the world for it's time despite the absence of Christianity?
Either scientists can explain strange objects seen in the sky, or these objects are piloted by visitors from outer space. Scientists cannot explain these objects, so they must be visitors from outer space.
Essentially, the false dichotomy is created in restricting the possibilities to two (or sometimes more), and deducing that since one of the possibilities is false, the other most be true. The problem is that there are possibilities that are not listed, bringing about a possibly false conclusion. Reword the argument above, and you get something like this:
Either scientists can definitively explain the origins of life, or God is responsible for the origins of life. Scientists cannot definitively explain the origins of life - therefore, God did it.
Not that you'd ever see such "logic" used, of course....
Whichever one the parents believe in?
On the contrary, it BEGINS it all right there. Only a bonehead with the same one-sided bias as you would think creationism is an end in itself.
There was nothing arbitrary in my statement. Any intellectual being existing solely within space/time (including physical laws, geometry, etc.) --- cannot be God for the very reason that Physicist gave in explaining why there is no "before" the big bang, i.e. no "south" of the South Pole. If the being only exists "in" space/time, the being cannot be "before" space/time.
The God of the Old Testament certainly seemed to live in "time" as we know it. In fact, at certain points, he changes his mind. How can that be if he is outside of space/time? Why would he flood the world?
God does not exist "in" time. That is the error which leads to the argument between young and old earth scenarios, and the key to solving the riddle. The issue is discussed on this thread: Freeper Views on Origins
The flood issue is discussed on this followup thread: Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs
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.