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."

V3 wrote (some thousand or so posts ago!): I'm seriously asking: Where is evolution supposed to be taking us? It's my understanding that we are supposedly 'evolving' to a higher state physically and in our behavior. If this is a correct (albeit elementary) explanation of evolution, then what is the ultimate end?

PatrickHenry responded: ...your question reveals that your teachers have done a real job of professional malpractice in teaching you.

V3: If you mean my public school teachers, please note that I'm young enough to have been taught in high school and college by leftie evolutionists, so I don't know if you want to call it professional malpractice (altho that's a darned good description and I'll use it in the future). My understanding of the direction evolution is taking us has been formed from observation and studying after my public school education.

PH: Evolution isn't 'taking us' anywhere.

V3: You really must be kidding! Please, I ask you to examine in depth the truth or falsehood of that statement. Evolutionists are always denying the evolution of their beliefs. It's a massive self-denial.

PH: It's a description of how populations change over time. The population changes because individuals (some of whom have mutated genes) either die without offspring (thus taking their genes out of the pool) or they survive long enough to spawn a new generation (thus keeping their genes in the pool). That's it. That's the whole ball of wax. Over time, we get the world of various species that we see -- including us.

V3: This is all well and fine. An interesting mini-lesson in evo applied to genetics.

PH: We, however, are intelligent to decide for ourselves where we're going, so the evolution process is going to be radically different where we're concerned.

V3: Really!?? Where are we going? Is this "going" somehow different from your assertion that evo is not "taking" us anywhere (I can't wait to hear your semantic hair-splitting answer to this one, kiddo)? Exactly who is going to do the deciding (this is one of my bottom line questions/concerns)?

Doctor Stochastic wrote: ...Your entire question presupposes claims not in evidence. "Evolving" has nothing to do with "higher" or "lower", just different; comparing and contrasting a crow with a crocus would elucidate the point. There is no "end," ultimate or otherwise. (If it's not ultimate, it isn't the end.) Evolutionary theory is about process, not about "ends" or "higher" or "lower."

V3: My use of the words "higher" and "lower" may not be scientifically correct to describe the evo process and my belief is actually that evos are promoting an evo on a linear model, so sorry about the terminology: But my point is that your theoretical process has been hijacked by those who are promoting worldviews/ideology contrary to Biblical belief, which hijackers are making foolish your purely scientific process by using it to promote anti-God beliefs that we will ultimately evolve into higher...opps, more advanced beings (certainly this is so on a behavioral model, but I'll bet there are those evos who totally believe it on a physiological model) – they use your theories (some with roots prior to Darwin, but certainly starting exponentially with Darwinism) to feed us a load of crap resulting in a negation of ID and a beginning and end to time, etc. You cannot tell me that many mainstream proponents of evolution are not promoting the idea that higher forms of animal life are derived from lower (especially in the fields of paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology and behavior, to name a few).

I think all this just gives us an idea of an evo's self-understanding. Evos must conceal, distort, and deceive themselves and would-be followers about their actual identity (or the actual uses of the process of evo theory). To acknowledge the lengths to which your scientific process has warped into a tool for leftie ideology might require a severe and serious re-thinking and repudiation of your roots, your leadership (especially your current leadership), and the results of your beliefs. It might require you to acknowledge a true, living God. Your self-denial would be hilarious if it weren't so fundamentally wretched and if y'all weren't overturning (or at least muddying the waters) without any factual evidence, centuries of belief in ID and, its faults admitted, the attendant good benefits same has provided our lives. Our universities/public schools, our scientific/religious communities, our culture, and our government have all been nearly consumed by these ideas, by the agenda of the evo leadership (giving the benefit of the doubt to the evos on this thread that some believe it to be a mere "process").

One of the most important things I've personally witnessed in this area is the almost universal idea that anyone in academia (no matter what the field, but mostly the sciences) not conforming to the evos way of thinking, and therefore not assisting in their forward movement toward a more advanced human (whether you want to call that linear or vertical), is thought of as ignorant, superstitious, duped by religion – it's damned near an automatic that their theories, altho probably no more, no less valid than the evo's theories, are passed over for peer-review and publication – these folks do not advance in the scientific/academic community, so they form their own groups (such as ICR for example), and are then dismissed by the self-appointed scientific elite because they're not properly peer-reviewed or published in the proper places.

Both sides of the story are not being presented to students (which means, in my book, indoctrination, not education). It's important because many of us (who have previously stood back thinking that all of you academicians possessed more knowledge, more reason, more logic, more critical thinking skills than the rest of us because you have your "university papers" informing us that you are more knowledgeable, reasonable, logical, etc.), many of us believed you without conducting our own studies. But these pre-conceived notions of yours are being challenged now more than ever – the increase of homeschooling is one of the most hopeful things in this regard. Our observation and experience testifies more to decay in the world than to increasing order. We accept that there are crack-pot ideas out there (and therefore the need for some sort of peer-review and dissemination of theories to *GASP* we the people for consideration), but creationism is not one of them.

Furthermore, many of us firmly believe that science has usurped the role of religion by claiming to have answers about our origins and the meaning and direction of our lives, by allowing its theories and processes to be hijacked by people who use those theories to shape a worldview that is diametrically opposed to beliefs about and in God (I only use the proper noun in reference to the God of Israel, Christianity and Islam). Evo is being used not only to find the origin of life, but to define the meaning of life. I would demand y'all give us back Judeo-Christian classrooms in the public schools, but it's too late for that (if we go back to prayer in school, it'll be a mish-mash of all religions, in other words new age prayers). If we want our children to be instructed in the truth, we now have to do it at home or private schools. We'll see how long the lefties and evos and elitists will allow that to go on.

At the risk of offending the pure reason crowd, this self-deception on the part of evos is truly sad and breaks my heart for you and those you seek (knowingly or not) to deceive.

V3 asks Evolutionists: Do you think all conditions in the world have remained static since history? Do you think history had a beginning and is progressing through time along with attendant changes, or has it always been here and always been the same?

Again, may the best and truest worldview win.

It has been my observation that for evil to progress it must deceive. It has to be able to appear to be what it is not in order to advance in our culture and in our own individual lives. Few of us, if any, choose evil because it is evil. We choose evil after having been seduced by charming words and images or persuaded by the lying desires of our own sinful nature. Paul Proctor

The Christian worldview is not unscientific or simpleminded or anti-intellectual. It is the only plausible explanation for the universe. Chuck Colson, The Body

The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus, Matthew, Isaiah and Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state. Harry S. Truman

That's the way God created us and how evolution designed us. Albert Gore [This is the core of new age religion—mixing up different, diametrically opposed worldviews. Are your beliefs in line with Al Gore & Company? GAG ME!]

What the Bible is to Christians, the Humanist Manifesto I, Humanist Manifesto II, and Humanist Manifesto 2000 is to the humanists. These publications represent the official position of the humanist movement, and each is accepted as the current humanist beliefs, ideas, values, and goals. The manifestos show how confident humanists are in their ultimate triumph. Many of the signers of the Manifestos are leaders in education, government and the Unitarian clergy. All promote atheism, evolution, amorality, and world government [globalism] among other things. Tim LaHaye, Mind Siege

The Founders believed that Christianity's influence on this world produced at least five tangible benefits: (1) a civilized society, (2) self-governing individuals, (3) good citizens, (4) elevated academic achievements, and (5) a stable society with a common value basis. David Barton, Wall Builders, The Practical Benefits of Christianity

...[When I was an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. C.S. Lewis

While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and [archeology] have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics. Norman Geisler

Priority must always be given to tangible, objective data, and to external evidence, over subjective theory or speculative opinions. Facts must control theory, not vice versa. Kenneth Kitchen

...No temais una muerte gloriosa
Que morir porla patria es vivar

...Do not fear a glorious death
To die for the Fatherland is to live.

Excerpt from the Cuban National Anthem (points to the hijacking of Christian beliefs into counterfeit Christianity)

The fundamental flaw in [the agnostic's] position is his claim to have knowledge of what he declares to be unknowable. In other words, if it were true that reality cannot be known, no one, including [the agnostic], would know it...agnosticism boils down to the claim: "I know that reality is unknowable." Norman L. Geisler, Peter Bocchino

We are not dealing with anything like a superficial resemblance between DNA and a written text. We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, [we are saying] DNA is a message. Hupert Yockey

Each of our beliefs and assertions represents the world as being a certain way, and the belief or assertion is true if the world is that way, and false if the world is not that way. It is...up to our beliefs and assertions to get the world right; if they don't [we suffer the consequences of a false worldview]. Peter Van Inwagen

In the Old Testament the prophets and psalmists frequently pointed to the impotence of idols as evidence that the gods of the nations were, in fact, false gods. And throughout the Bible the fulfillment of prophecy is emphasized as proof of the true God's sovereign control over the universe. Hank Hanegraaff

In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. Sir Isaac Newton

We often think that when we have completed our study on one, we know all about two, because 'two is one and one.' We forget that we have still to make a study of 'and.' Sir Arthur Eddington

One reason why many people find [the false idea of the "force" or "life-force"] so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in [a god] and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere [chance evolution] of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great...force rolling on throughout the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the life-force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children. The life-force is a sort of tame god. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you. All the thrills of religion and none of its costs. Is the life-force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the worlds has yet seen? C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Perhaps God hardens Pharaoh's heart as sunshine hardens clay, but the same sunshine melts a pat of butter and warms a frigid nose. The receiving substances, not the sun, often determines the outcome. Chris Blake

...there are three great families of faiths. One is Eastern, which includes Hinduism, Buddhism, and new age, and the essence of its worldview is that they all go back to the same source of reality: an impersonal being. And everything flows out of that. The second big family of faith is the secularists (humanists, naturalists, atheists, agnostics), and the essence of its worldview is that they all go back to the same source of reality: chance plus time plus matter [i.e. evolution]. And everything flows out of that. The third great family of faith is the Judeo-Christian Biblical, and the essence of its worldview is that it goes back to the same source of reality: an infinite, personal God. And everything flows out of that...The popular idea about these faiths is sort of Oprah Winfrey-esque [GAG ME TWICE!]: That there's a common core to them all and we just have to be nice to each other. This is absolute rubbish. When it comes to humanness, and rights and wrongs, justice and freedom, the great families of faiths have entirely different answers. Os Guinness (tweaked slightly for brevity)

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts. 2 Timothy 3:1-6

A man may proclaim the pure doctrine, but if he does not condemn and refute the opposing false doctrine, does not warn against the wolves in sheep's clothing, the false prophets, and unmask them, he is not a faithful steward of God's mysteries, not a faithful watchman on the walls of Zion, but, as the Word of God says, an unfaithful servant, a dumb dog, a traitor...The pastor cannot wash his hands in innocence, pleading that he has always preached the full truth, if he did not warn against error and, when necessary, identify it by naming the errorist; if his sheep, either while he is still serving or after he had left them for another field, become the prey of ravening wolves in sheep's clothing, he is guilty of their blood. Walther

For over a generation, archaeologists -- led by such distinguished scholars as Kathleen Kenyon -- have been unearthing ruins that, as the historian Paul Johnson writes, have "given us renewed confidence in the actual existence of places and events described in the early Old Testament books." [forgot to record cite/author]

Picture a piece of embroidery placed between you and God, with the right side up toward God. Man sees the loose, frayed ends; but God sees the pattern. Corrie ten Boom

"I believe in the sun even when it is not shining. I believe in love even when I don't feel it. It believe in God even when He is silent. [I believe in air and gravity even though I don't see it.]" Written on the wall of a prison cell in Europe and quoted (except that in brackets] in Billy Graham's book, 'Til Armageddon

G.K. Chesterton once said, the doctrine of original sin is the only philosophy empirically validated by centuries of recorded human history. Chuck Colson, How Now Shall We Live?

Walker observes: “But Churchland’s statement is quite misleading. [...] ‘If one’s pains and hopes and beliefs do not…seem like electrochemical states,’ it may be, in fact, that such a concept is an entirely false hypothesis. Churchland gives no scientific data to prove that such is the mechanism of consciousness, nor has anyone else. In fact, if you were to ask, he would likely have no idea how you would prove such a notion scientifically”....

Scientific data can't prove any hypothesis, it can only support or disprove it. There is, of course, plenty of data supporting the idea that the mind is electrochemical in nature: mind-altering drugs and anesthetics, electroshock therapy and PMS all point in that direction. I would say that there's no data to refute the electrochemical basis of the mind, and no other hypothesis with better factual support.

But that doesn’t mean that we humans are reduced to a linear series of neural synaptic events electrochemically induced and somehow sorted out by the “mechanism” called brain. It also doesn’t mean we ought to devalue or delegitimate human conscious experience, introspectively examined. For if we do this, then ultimately there is no way to guard against the depredations of folks who think it’s O.K. “to enjoy the infliction of cruelty.”

But of course we can guard against it. Consider: when a bacterial infection strikes a rat, there's no objective way--either in the domain of logic or of moral sentiment--for us to say that the rat is "better" than the bacteria that are killing it, or that its genes should be favored for propagation over theirs. This moral toss-up doesn't trouble the immune system of the rat, however: it recognizes the threat and does its level best to destroy it. Somehow this unjustified intolerance doesn't give us a moment's philosophical pause.

Whether or not we can come up with a strictly objective moral justification for neutralizing sociopaths, our society will do either do it or succumb.

V3: Which leads to (ultimately, from the evolution POV) the question, "Where did the BB come from."

Physicist: Why stop there, and not with "where did God come from", or go further and ask, "why is there something and not just nothing?"

V3: I didn't stop there and my studies came down to two points: Would I allow for supernatural intervention and what is my understanding of the 2nd law of thermo? Obviously, I ultimately allowed for supernatural intervention and my understanding of the 2nd law of thermo allows for God to be outside space/time thereby making moot the question "where did He come from?".

Physicist: At some level, the question is necessarily unanswerable, so our inability to answer "where did the Big Bang come from" is no more of a philosophical disadvantage for physics than is faced by any other school.

V3: I agree, so let's either open up the BB theory to the possibility of God (or ID, if you prefer) or just dismiss the whole dang thing.

V3: Or, possibly more cogently, "How did the energy necessary for the BB to occur organize itself?"

Physicist: I think that's less cogent, because energy is something that exists in the universe.

V3: Does it just exist without explanation? How does it exist? And back to Sandage's question: How is it that energy organizes itself to contemplate itself?

Physicist: Energy conservation is a consequence of the temporal homogeneity of space, which is something that is a consequence of (and subsequent to) the Big Bang. It didn't obviously have to be that way; until recently one of the most promising cosmological models called for an vacuum with significant inhomogeneities (the so-called "cosmic string" models).

V3: I must defer to your knowledge on this cosmic string model and the explanation of the evo belief in and understanding of BB. Isn't this idea of energy conservation dealt with in one of the two laws of thermo?

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.