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."
Yes. It would prevent someone from babbling: "You don't know where the universe came from, so Darwin's evolution is all hokum!" Alas, there is a never-ending supply of fresh posters who think exactly that way, and we all grow weary of correcting them.
I do not however believe we will ever be able to have a discussion about intelligent design without it becoming multi-discipline. Related subjects that have a bearing on the issue - such as consciousness - will delve into psychology, philosophy, theology, physics, biology, etc. Further, the state-of-the-art in science is multi-discipline. Information theory and mathematics in molecular biology, cosmology and directed panspermia in evolution, quantum mechanics and physics in biology, etc.
True. ID, like theology, purports to cover everything, and its supporters have the burden of showing that everything is the result of ID (and is impossible to have developed by natural means) which is a bit daunting. But the proponents of ID can, whenever they're in trouble on one issue, leap to a totally different field and bring up another example of ID. We end up with scattered discussions that never go anywhere. Better to focus on a few well-worn areas, like biology.
IMHO, the most helpful statements in these debates come when a poster essentially says something like "the material world is all that there is" or "the Bible is the inerrant Word of God". Once they have made such a declaration, there is really no point in belaboring a point that is totally repugnant to their worldview.
Helpful? Yes, but only because that way we know whether it's useful to try to engage the person in any conversatoin at all. (That's why my "virtual ignore" list is so long.)
We are on two different wavelengths but the reason for that is you. You are unwilling to admit or unable to see the philosophy behind your own system. Philosophy is EVERYTHING.
I know history, probably a bit more then you do actually, but I will not get into a pissing match over it.
Your comments on the early American Christians certainly do not indicate that you know your American history. You made a false statement.
Evolution is a scientific theory, the facts back it up, you just choose to ignore those facts. That is your decision.
I have not seen you present any facts, just unsupported assertions. Molecule-to-man evolution is impossible. I will ask you again (since you ignored it last time): How is information added to the genome in the NS+random mutation process?
Creationism on the other hand, has absolutely NO facts to back it up. It was written in a book and it is believed blindly. This is called religion. Religion does NOT belong in a science class. That is where we end up.
I would wager you have never even read the bible. What you say about it is very likely based upon what you have heard. That, my friend, is contempt before investigation.
I am not sure why you want to teach a religious doctrine in a science class. Start a relgious class if you want to do that.
If it is true that God created the world, then shouldn't all human beings be taught that truth? If it is true that God created the world, would it not follow that REAL science would conform to the ordered universe as God made it? Why would this not be science? YOUR definition of science does not allow for God - but that is based upon YOUR philosophy and YOUR presuppositions. YOUR presuppositions are: There is no God, therefore everything evolved; everything evolved, therefore there is no God. First, you assume there is no God, then you define science in the realm of a godless impersonal cosmos. YOUR definition of science is erroneous. As I have already stated, Newton, Copernicus, and Kepler were all scientists who understood that the cosmos was created by God and studied it under that assumption. How did they ever come up with the right answers without Darwin?
I want Kids to learn about science and fact, not be indoctrinated into some silly religion. If you want to do that, do it at home and church. It's NOT the schools job.
YOu mean, YOUR definition of science. You are right - it is NOT the school's job - so why do they indoctrinate kids into YOUR religion? Your religion is atheism and that is what they teach kids in 100% of public schools. I will teach MY Kids what I want them to learn, not what the bankrupt and pathetic public schools want to teach them. I draw your attention to the performance of home schoolers (90% of them are Christian) who outperform public school students to the point of EMBARRASSMENT! That is one reaosn why people who think like you want to do away with home schooling - IT'S A THREAT TO DARWINISM!
IMHO, whenever anyone demands proof of intelligent design, the result will be a multi-discipline discussion. The evidence cannot be seen wearing a blindfold.
But the proponents of ID can, whenever they're in trouble on one issue, leap to a totally different field and bring up another example of ID.
I am a proponent of ID and have never felt in trouble on any issue and I have no recollection whatsoever of changing the subject. Do you have any example of where I have? If so, would you point it out so I can learn from it.
Yes, but only because that way we know whether it's useful to try to engage the person in any conversatoin at all.
Exactly. None of us would try to persuade a person who does not speak our language or is mentally handicapped. Not only is it futile, getting angry about it is unseemly. IMHO, it is better to make our own case on its merits and then back out of the discussion.
I have a degree in history. I have read plenty. And I can state unequivocally that "ID" was not a term or concept that was in use in 1700! The model in 1700 was CREATIONISM. Period. ID is simply a new way of touting creationism without mentioning the threatening and menacing word, "GOD," because people like you soil yourselves when you hear it.
I thought you said that evolutionists never made the conclusions about evolution from DNA similarity??? The very fact that you bother to respond to my post indicate that you are well aware that they did! That's one black mark for you! haha.
What did you do - go and pick up a book on logic to come up with this answer? The idea of evolution is indeed a willy-nilly and fuzzy thing, but the claim that man evolved from chimps or that they had a common ancestor is a formal claim. I have already expressed it formally. Here it is again:
X is similar to Y in Z
Therefore, Y evolved from X, or Therefore, Y and X evolved from K
The law of the excluded middle applies no matter how adamantly you say it doesn't because evolutionists have made the above conclusion.
I admitted the term "ID" was not in use in 1700. Are you going on record asserting that the concept was not in use, and that many of the great thinkers of the time did not consider the universe to be a great mechanism created by God?
What's this - value relativism? (lol) If worth is subjective, then it's worthless. Marquis de Sade said it best, "What is, is right." (And we all know what this guy did, don't we?) That means, if all is subjective, then everyone and everything is right! Therefore, cruelty and non-cruelty are EQUAL. If worth is subjective then it's all in your feeble little atom-smashing brain - which, by the way, is also the result of random impersonal material processes. You also should write a letter to the U.N. - they believe in this thing called universal human rights - you should set them straight (you and Stalin)!
No matter - this also would be a conclusion that has nothing to do with the premise, to wit: X is similar to Y in Z, therefore X and Y evolved from K. Huh? that doesn't follow either, does it?
If X is similar to Y in Z, then it is possible that X and Y came from similar origins. Not definite, but most definitely possible. It is a theory which holds a good amount of credibility, but is by no means certain. -ME
I already pointed out that this is a fallacy in logic (law of the excluded middle). -YOU AGAIN
Back to the present. Watch how silly your statements are. Twins are born X and Y. They have similarities which are undeniable and it can be assumed, argued, or proven even that they came from similar, if not THE SAME origins. You are making the absurd point that using similarities in physical attributes cannot be used as evidence of the similarity of origins. I understand that it is not a statement of fact and is not proof in and of itself, but it leads to possibilities that warrant further investigation and research.
Or use a certain geological area which is heavy in an element. Heavier than any area in the world. Two rocks are found that contain a very high concentration of this same element. Concentrations this high are seen in very few places. It can be reasoned, but not singularly proven from this evidence, that there is a possiblity that these rocks came from the original location that I spoke of. Further research would obviously be required, but it is a clue. A logical flow. You are saying that this logic you have disproven and I am saying this is logic that cannot be refuted. Similar attributes can indeed imply (but does not necessitate) similar origins.
We aren't talking about gold. However, it does not surprise me that an atheist would equate humans with an inanimate object. I will go further and state that your arguments are worthless and without meaning and value because even your thoughts are the result of meaningless, random, impersonal, material processes. So, why should I listen to you? I have my own random impersonal material mental processes. Thus, no one person's thoughts can possibly be superior to another's. All you can do is keep repeating your same mantra - "value is subjective" because logically you lose every time.
If this were true, I might start listening, however, this statement is a figment of your imagination and is without even a shred of evidence.
It is a hazardous political view that worth is based on what you assign to it. To the feminist, a fetus has no intrinsic worth - no human right.
In the mind of some radicals, Jewish people have no intrinsic worth and should be terminated. The same thinking underscores racism, slavery, etc.
In a materialist or atheist worldview, the best that can be offered is a democratic vote to agree on worth. The hope of survival for detested peoples would rest on the mercy of the majority.
Please read my post again. I state that ID and creationism are two different things because ID does not mention God. The great scienists of the 17th and 18th centuries were creationists! They were not afraid to say that God created the universe and all that is in it. I am not either. I think some ID people today realize that evolution is bogus (M. Behe) for example, and that there is a designer behind it all, but for whatever reason, can't bring themselves to say or believe that it was the God of the bible who did the creating. Others, like W. Dembski, are creationists, but they keep the terminology in secular terms so as to keep the focus on the bogus theory of evolution; if he were to say that God was the designer, then the evolutionists, like you, would take him down a rabbit trail and the focus would shift to God. He wants to keep the focus on evolutionary theory and its colossal shortcomings.
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.