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."
You keep saying this, but all it is is words. Biologists (you know, the guys actually doing work in the field) have no problem accepting the validity of evolution and the mounds of evidence that support it. They don't seem to take your claims very seriously. Maybe you should write a paper or something.
Perhaps you would give a testable claim or prediction of Creationism and similarly for Intelligent Design. A testable clam that distinguishes these two would be of interest too.
Perhaps you would give a testable claim or prediction of Creationism and similarly for Intelligent Design. A testable clam that distinguishes these two would be of interest too.
Intelligent Design:
Dembski: Becoming a Disciplined Science:Prospects, Pitfalls, and a Reality Check for ID: Dembski, William A.:
While it makes perfect sense for a designer to throw in an "operating manual" (much as automobile manufacturers include operating manuals with the cars they make), this possibility makes no sense for blind material mechanisms, which cannot anticipate scientific investigators. Research in this area would consist in constructing statistical tests to detect such second-order designs (in other words, steganalysis). Should such second order designs be discovered, the next step would be to seek algorithms for embedding these second-order designs in the organisms. My suspicion is that biological systems do steganography much better than we, and that steganographers will learn a thing or two from biology -- though not because natural selection is so clever, but because the designer of these systems is so adept at steganography.
Such second-order steganography would, in my view, provide decisive confirmation for ID. Yet even if it doesn't pan out, first-order steganography (i.e., the embedding of functional information useful to the organism rather than to a scientific investigator) could also provide strong evidence for ID.
Entropy in Logic and the Theory of Algorithms
Max Tegmark - Is “the theory of everything” merely the ultimate ensemble theory?
Schmidhuber - Algorithmic Theories of Everything
Iaian Stewart - Theories of Everything
Stephen Wolfram - A New Kind of Science
My layman’s prediction: The Bible says that God spoke creation into existence. If that is so, we should expect to see residual harmonics of His speaking.
Bible:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. – John 1:1
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. – Psalms 33:6
The 36-member, international “Boomerang” (Balloon Observations of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation and Geomagnetics) collaboration, led by Andrew Lange of Caltech and Paolo de Bernardis of the University of Rome, confirms that a plot of CMB strength peaks at a multipole value of about 197 (corresponding to CMB patches about one degree in angular spread), very close to what theorists had predicted for a cosmology in which the universe’s overall curvature is zero and the existence of cold dark matter is invoked…
The shape of the observed pattern of temperature variations suggests that a disturbance very like a sound wave moving through air passed through the high- density primordial fluid and that the CMB map can be can be thought of as a sort of sonogram of the infant universe. (de Bernardis et al., Nature, 27 April 2000.)
The results were presented as plots of slight temperature variations in the CMB that graph sound waves in the dense early universe. These high-resolution “power spectra” show not only a strong primary resonance but are consistent with two additional harmonics, or peaks.
You seem to be responding to something not present in the article. The article concerns a simple disclaimer stating "that evolution is only a theory" at the beginning of the book. Evolution is only a theory.
There is nothing in the article to suggest that the biology textbook would be "giving" students the Genesis creation story at all, let alone "all of the creation myths".
In short, you might be overreacting. To find out, try carefully reading the article at the top of this thread. If you're interested.
Because many people go around saying stuff like "evolution is a FACT", in over-reaction to complaints from creationists. It is perfectly reasonable to correct this gross misapprehension and make sure that children understand the true nature of science and how it relates to hypotheses such as "evolution".
In fact that would be all right with me. But there's no real need seeing as how there are very few overzealous idiotic people who go around saying stuff like "General Relativity is a FACT", as is commonly said about "evolution".
In fact, everything in science should be labeled a theory, since it is always open to review and alteration because of new evidence.
Exactly. But evolution proponents often seem to forget this. Best,
So? It's perfectly reasonable to single out special topics for such reminders if they are especially politically sensitive to the point where many people don't seem to realize the status of the theory as a theory. As is the case with evolution.
The obvious intention here
Intention? Intention?? Who cares about intentions. There are true statements and false statements. "Evolution is a theory" is a true statement. Who cares what my "intention" is for saying this, if it's true? Better yet, why not tell kids this - if it's true?
We want to tell kids the truth, and facts, correct? Or only when our "intentions" are pure for doing so. You tell me.
The obvious intention here is to inculcate doubt in the minds of the students regarding evolution,
There should be "doubt" in the mind of students regarding all theories. You insist that students take everything as dogma, Physicist?
Indeed. We call such explanations "theories". Evolution is a theory, and now this true statements will be stated in textbooks. What's the big deal?
Not exactly a statement supportive of your position, but considering how fundamentally weak and factually inaccurate your position is, I hardly call that surprising.
You claim that the theory of evolution makes fundamental assumptions regarding the origin and purpose of life. I'm not familiar with that particular theory. You, on the other hand, are arguing against it with such vigor that you must be fully conversant with it. I asked you once to state that theory and you demurred. I asked you again and you called me names. Is it really that unreasonable a request? Or could it be that you are aware of your own dishonesty, and seek to change the subject?
Gravity is a fact and a theory as well. Physics still has theoretical issues here and there with gravity, but there's no question it's an observable force.
The claim that the opposition to evolution is not based on religion is a shallow legal fiction--a bald-faced lie. No one is fooled.
Uh, "true", I guess. Your Post #330 was indeed very basic.
It wasn't addressed to me, however, and has little relation to any of the statements I've made on this thread. Reading it carefully I have various problems and disagreements with some of the statements, as well as some difficulty following the logic of why you think those statements are linked together or related to this discussion.
But on the plus side, I have nothing much to add to your Post #330. I think it speaks for itself and I encourage all in this thread to read it, particularly the "no true disclaimers in textbooks!" side of the argument, because I would be especially interested to see what they have to say about it. Best,
It is simply a statement made from an observation. All things being equal, those most adapted to a particular environmental niche will most likely survive long enough to pass their genes along because they have an advantage over those not so well adapted.
No, it is more than that, it is a prediction upon which the theory of natural selection and evolution itself is based on. Without survival of the fittest there would be no selection, all traits would survive with equal probability.
Survival of the fittest is incorrect on the ground that Malthusian theory has been proven to be completely false, humans are able through intelligence to increase their food supply (and let it be noted that Darwin applied natural selection to humans). In addition, the tremendous bounty of nature which is visible everywhere shows quite well that there is even now a vast amount of food available for a greater population of species besides humans. If this were not enough, as any farmer (and even people who grow plants at home) can tell you, plants restrict their size according to how closely they are planted. So there is no struggle, no destruction, no death necessary as Darwin and his followers ignorantly and incorrectly propose.
You keep saying this, but all it is is words. Biologists
I ask for you evidence and you give me authorities. If there is no evidence it does not matter a hoot what the 'authorities' have to say. Science is about evidence. Give us the evidence not fairy tales (and not links either).
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.