Speaking of false dichotomies, where do Gloop and Gleep fit into this scheme?
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."
Okay, have it your way: they don't. More specifically, you don't.
Does that idea bother you, exmarine? Would you stop going to church then? Without the threat of everlasting damnation, would you run amuck and fulfill your wildest personal-power fantasies with your gun or your M-16? And if not, then why bother with the distinction at all?
What sarcasm?
Thank you f.Christian, for your well thought out and informative post.
Hello, I'm a Johnny-come-very-lately to this lengthy debate. Sorry for jumping in here, don't mean to be rude, but this statement is nonsensical. The point is that the gap between our limited understanding of reality and Ultimate Reality is infinite, and thus is an extremely powerful argument for the possibility of God's existence. That there is so much more that we don't know as compared to what we are able to know is in itself an argument for God's existence, for things like facts and knowledge of those facts do not sustain themselves in a vaccuum.
Good thing you remembered to include the word "solely". Otherwise you might have excluded th possibility that someone could be both human and God at the same time. No end of mischief there...
Thank you for being very sweet and using proper paragraphing and sentence structure when posting. I will check out your links now.
Speaking of false dichotomies, where do Gloop and Gleep fit into this scheme?
Hello Johnny-come-lately. Let me point out in particular one thing that you said...
The point is that the gap between our limited understanding of reality and Ultimate Reality is infinite, and thus is an extremely powerful argument for the possibility of God's existence.
How does this make my statement nonsensical? And how is your statement sensical? You are echoing what is said too often: If we don't know stuff, there must be a God. Well let's look at dogs, they are far less intelligent than us, thats an even more powerful piece of evidence. Lack of knowledge does not necessitate supreme knowledge.
Other than the denial that the scientific method is a valid method of obtaining knowledge (a purpose Creationism shares with Post-Modern-Deconstructionism), what is the purpose of Creationism? Why do Creationists try so hard to get scientists not to teach their (currently accepted as) best theories?
Your time on Earth is but a vapor. Your body will die and you will meet your maker.
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.