Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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 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.

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."

I DO dispute it. My copy of Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary contains no such definition for the "Theory of Evolution"... in fact, the "Theory of Evolution" isn't even an entry.

What you're disputing is that "theory of evolution" is used by some to provide an all encompassing explanation for why the universe is as it is without resorting to the supernatural. What I'd suggest you do is let Richard Dawkins know.

All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way."
---The Blind Watchmaker:Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design

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.

There was no such term as ID in 1700. These men were THEISTS. Let's get the fact straight shall we? There was no bitter argument because Darwinism was not even a consideration at that time. The discoveries were possible because these men had the correct worldview. Without the correct worldview, these discoveries could not be made. Evolution won because they FORCED their view on everyone else, as they do today. Our public schools are hotbeds for indoctrination not just into evolutoin, but into the bogus philosophies behind it - empiricism, materialism, naturalism. Are you going to deny there is no philosophy behind darwinism.

You must tell an alternate story that has predictive power.

Thanks for admitting evolution is a "story." Logically, even if I could not come up with an alternate theory (which I already have in a creator), that does not prove evolution to be true. Evolution can not be true by default - it must be true because it is true and can be demonstrated.

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. Yes, and the complexity of the "simple cell" hmm? And the gaps in the fossil record. I do not see where these fossils "fit as expected into a time and structure line." That is a false statement. Where is the evidence for that? Where are all of those transitional intermediate forms - there should be billions of them. Everything I have seen is a fully formed phyla - where are the transitional phyla? You think evolution is science, then you won't have any trouble explaining to me how information is added to the genome in the molecule-to-man process; or how the first protein molecule self-assembled. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone (in the world!) to explain these to me in the form of scientific evidence. All I ever get are fantastic just-so stories which is not science at all. Would you like to take a crack at it?

Well, I think you're going to far. Speculation is an essential (and fun) part of the scientific process. What's important is to have the right attitude about it. It's an art really.

Speculation is the fun part of philosopizing, partying, and doping off. Some of these notions occasionally make it into the realm of science, by becoming experimentally accessible. We spend our hard earned loot on science, and more than that, scientists, referees, technical editors and academics commit energy, time, and careers to it, so we don't take noodling around with ideas seriously until they reach a stage of particularity such that they can be taken apart piecemeal in the journals.

Well, I am not better then you, and I don't believe your Jesus Christ was god on earth, OK? You are definitely NOT better then me because you do.

I did not say I was better than anyone else. I am not. Even those who reject Christ are made in God's image and deserve love and respect. I am simply setting you straight since you are very confused about history. I am sorry that makes you angry. My intent is not to make you angry but to make you question. Calling Christians "Taliban" is a derogatory statement towards Christians. Unless you can back up such statements, you should not make them because it's wrong.

There is just no room in a christian heart for any other religion but their own, man, and I thought the Taliban and and Islam was bad. They really do have some competition for arrogance.

There is just no room in a christian heart for any other religion but their own, man, and I thought the Taliban and and Islam was bad. They really do have some competition for arrogance. There is no room in my heart for false gods, but there is room for people. There is only one truth, one God, one true faith. Truth is narrow by definition, otherwise it would not be truth. I am sorry that offends you. No offense intended, however, it is unfortunate that you want to compare Christianity with the Taliban.

Ever think that to the individuals involved, they and their kith and kin have worth? I mean, with humans being social critters and all it behooves us to stick together in groups and treating others as worthwhile helps to cement the ties of the group? But, in the eyes of the universe we are all pretty much nothing? I think it's really all a matter of scale.

How does sticking together equate to real objective worth? Why is cementing social ties valuable? The universe has no eyes, remember? If atheism is true, then you cannot be any more valuable than a rock, because the universe and ALL that is in it is the result of random material processes which have no value. Mankind is reduced to a big fat zero. That is the end of your philosophy.

why insist that the definition of science entails predicting results that we can fit into a theory? How are you going to separate "chance" from "predicatability" and still be a scientist?

What I said was that chance was not a principle of science. Taken to mean "statistics", chance is a tool of science, not unlike linear algebra or microscopes.

What you appear to be encompassing in the word "chance" is the principle of verification by successful prediction.

Perhaps you are intent on pointing out that some issues in evolutionary theory are verified by detecting what statisticians call central tendencies in data. As in, most small dino bones seem to be buried in Jurassic dirt, but not all. Creationists make much of not understanding this, because an understanding of central tendancies in statistical evaluation would terminate a massive clot of their arguments.

The questions still remain: given the "balancing act bewteen particles," was the resulting universe as we know it a predicatable result?

As per the quantum physicists--Not. Quantum events are inherently unpredicable, no matter how sharp your math or how big your computer.

Was this "arising" of conservation laws completely unguided? If so, does it remain this way to this day?

Beyond my ken. Once again, science is about stuff known to exist, not immaterial stuff--things outside of space and time are close enough to immaterial for me. Personally, I am kind of given to the anthropic argument for design, however, I do not remotely mistake that for an accessable scientific question.

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.

Others have commented on this statement, but I'll toss in a couple of coppers as well. First, the assertion that the gap in our understanding of reality and actual reality is infinite has not been supported, although I suggest it is certainly asymptotic. That our knowledge is incomplete indicates only and exactly that we still have more to learn. You cannot convert lack of evidence into support for your own pet theory.

Of course, you may not exist at all, so maybe it evens out in the end, heheh.

That sounds pretty circular. For my part energy and eletric fields, let alone quantum probability amplitudes, are no more material concepts than God. Every theory must have undefined terms. It seems reasonable to call them immaterial.

This use of the word "material" has a longstanding philosophical tradition behind it. If you firmly insist that mere passive baryonic and fermionic stuff is all there is, you've flattened the world to the point where you can't talk about it or manipulate it. It is not circular, but it is difficult. Science affirms some issues as well and firmly connected to reality, others not. No formal means exists for differentiating. Faith in scientific theories, like faith in God, is still just faith, you pays your money, and you takes your choice. Scientists just choose with more cynical, experimentation-oriented, concensus-seeking rigorous critical discression than most.

agree that it crosses into ideology and therefore ought not to be taught in public schools. However, research continues and scientists are working on tests for the various theories, such as the search for extra dimensions at FermiLab.

To me it all quite exciting and I will continue watching and waiting. Thank you so very much for the discussion!

Oh, I concur. And I certainly hope you will continue to report back to us.

That's not what I said, and it isn't what Dawkins does with it in his essay that you linked.

What I said was that the "Theory of Evolution" is about Biology, not Cosmology, and that the word "evolution" can be used to characterize ANY process of formation or change.

What Dawkins does in your link is use the (biological) Theory of Evolution, along with physics and chaos theory to illustrate that natural processes can give rise to complexity without the need for a "designer," and then argues in view of the foregoing, there is no reason to assume that "black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life, etc." had to be "designed." Or, as Dawkins puts it himself:

This argument is a circular argument. It assumes that the universe, black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life etc are created. Actually physics, chaos theory and evolutionary theory tell us how most complex things in the world could have evolved on their own, without any help from any "watchmaker". [emphasis added]

Note that this is the only instance of the word "Evolution" appearing anywhere in the essay you linked.

Using the principles of the (biological) Theory of Evolution (specifically, purely natural mechanisms that could explain the development of complex entities), along with evidence provided by OTHER scientific theories, in an argument about the necessity for a "designer" of the Universe, hardly qualifies as converting the (biological) Theory of Evolution into a theory of Cosmology, which is what your original post to me asserted.

A similar example of the mistake you are making would be to argue that because one uses principles derived from Meteorology to demonstrate the existence of long-term chaotic processes in nature, that Meteorology IS Chaos Theory.

Look - This DNA similarity argument has been used by evolutionists more times than I can count in my debates with them. Yes, it is an argument put forrth by evolutionists. It is certainly not a straw man I erected - I could never come up with such a lame argument.

What evolutionists say is NOT that men evolved from chimps. They say modern chimps and modern men both evolved from some common ancestor species. That is why morphological gaps exist. Species have finite lifetimes, so any smooth intermediaries between chimps and men can be taken off the books as wiped out. Evolution, when observed from any present moment, looks like a few late-autumn leaves, each on distinct, widely separated branches, because most of the leaves have fallen long ago. The model of evolution as a linear chain between men and chimps is an innacurately simplified model of evolutionary theory.

Find a book on logic and look up "law of the excluded middle" in the logical fallacies section. The conclusion x evolved from Y does not flow from the original premise.

The law of the excluded middle applies to formal logical reasoning about discrete sets, it does not apply to analogical reasoning, or reasoning by induction on statistical evidence. When dealing with statistical evidence, you are dealing with fuzzy (or poorly determined) sets. The tradition laws of logic to which you allude apply to unambiguously discrete sets, they are innacurate when applied willy-nilly to fuzzy sets.

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.