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."
Now that's a reading of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics I hadn't heard before! But in any case, divine intervention from "outside of spacetime" pretty much trashes the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so you'll have to give one of them up.
I agree, so let's either open up the BB theory to the possibility of God
Sounds good to me. Propose an experimental test of God and we'll be on our way.
Isn't this idea of energy conservation dealt with in one of the [three] laws of thermo?
Yes. What do you conclude from this?
And I didn't think the debate could get more postmodern.
When you figure out why you don't believe in all those other gods out there, then you'll know why I don't believe in yours.
An atheist walked the earth, explained our role in the universe, then rose from the dead?
Actually, you didn't, as my previous posts to you amply, and in great detail, illustrated.
Your links show the usage of the WORD (not Theory of... ) "evolution," meaning "a process of change," can, among many other topics, be applied to Cosmology. In such contexts, the word has no biological connotation at all.
Surely you can't be so obtuse as to not see the point? There is no "well-known biological/cosmological Theory of Evolution" traceable back to Darwin, and your links do not suggest otherwise, as I've explained to you previously.
My point, actually, is that there is more than one theory of evolution being discussed in our culture. I was actually taught the all encompassing view in my high school.
But I say Everyone will believe in Jesus Christ, you just haven't arrived at that point yet.
You say values are subjective. This statement itself is an OBJECTIVE statement (making universal claims about values) and is self-refuting and self-stultifiying. If values are subjective, you can make no objective claims about them without contradicting yourself.
Objective is a word with meaning. Thank you for proving that. The concept of objective exists. It simply means universal. If God created the universe and all that is in it including all moral precepts, then to discuss anything "universal" is to automatically defer to God as he created the "universe." Our entire reality is within this universe and God made it. If any abstract idea or moral precept be objective, it must come from God as there is no other possible source. For example, the moral precept "all men are created equal" must be assigned to God as there is no other objective source available. Therefore, if objectivity exists, God is the author. There is no other possible source for objectiveness.
Your only logical refuge is to say all things (morals, rights, human value) are ALL COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE - or relative. That makes you a relativist. If all is subjective, who cares about your subjective opinion, I have my own and I CAN'T BE WRONG in your system. If it is subjective, then I must be right, and you must be right. Therefore, when I argue that human value is objective, I CAN'T BE WRONG, because in your world, whatever view I hold is right under the rules of subjectivism. Thus, you contradict yourself when you argue the point. All you can do is remain silent - otherwise, you contradict yourself.
You can't win this argument so you should quit while you are ahead.
Here is the phrase from one of those links: Evolution, the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today, is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology.
Why is "evolution" the sequence of events by the which the world came to be as wee see it? Why is "evolution" the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology?
How is it self-refuting? One can make all sorts of objective observations about subjective things -- otherwise, how would one determine if another's opinions were worth the paper they were printed upon? Or, as another example one can objectively determine the effects of a particular value judgement on a system through experimentation or observation. One can even statistically compile the subjective opinions of a subject from a number of people and draw an objective conclusion from the numbers. Of course, one can also make subjective claims about objective properties -- i.e., "I don't like people shorter than 1.2 meters tall."
Indeed, there are. As are Elvis sightings.
But as to the question you raised about there being a "well-known" biological/cosmological Theory of Evolution "traceable back to Darwin".... I am unaware of such a theory being proposed or entertained by scientists.
Can you please provide a citation to a mainstream peer-reviewed science journal article in which it (a "well-known" biological/cosmological Theory of Evolution "traceable back to Darwin") is discussed? Links to websites that contain seemingly ambiguous wording don't count.
You dodged the question - as usual. You are the one that said that value must be measured. How do you prove that empirically? You can't and you know it. Empiricism demands that all reality be observable or measurable and we both know you can't prove this proposition empirically. It's a dud. Why don't you just admit it what we already know? Empiricism doesn't work - it is insufficient to explain human reality. It was refuted long ago - you are still living in the 19th century (with Darwin). Come on - you can do it - admit it when you are wrong. You are busted.
You wrote: "I would say that there's no data to refute the electrochemical basis of the mind, and no other hypothesis with better factual support."
The point is, the putative electrochemical basis (it may well be so!) of the mind is still not the MIND, it is only "basis." But if we're gonna rest on our laurels at this juncture, and not pursue other hypotheses, if only to "cross-check" the one we've already got, then we're not going to learn anything new about the mind. I call this "resting on doctrine." Which is what a whole lot of scientists, not to mention religious people, seem to do these days.
Here's an analogy to illustrate what I mean: Christians are called to faith, not in a doctrinal text, but faith in a direct relationship (i.e., communion) with God. To put the "doctrine" in the place of the "reality" (which is God) is to commit a very grave act of idolatry.
Analogously, it is particularly noticeable in Darwinism that the "doctrine" is often the end in view; the reality is made to conform to it, as if the doctrine were a kind of template designed to filter all reality to a set of preferred "statements" or categories. Thus, resorting to the doctrine primarily, we say we understand something. But what do we understand? Is it reality? or only the doctrine?
The only alternative to doctrinaire thinking is complete openness of conscious existence to its ground -- similar to the analogy of what Christianity requires of its faithful ones. Otherwise, all we do (arguably) is to shape our understanding of nature in our own image.
JMHO FWIW.
What is frustrating is that you can't even see (or admit?) your own illogic. Don't you know what a self-refuting statement is? Here are some examples: "I can't speak of word of english" or "Everything I say is a lie," or "all values or truth is subjective". Think about it awhile and get back to me.
Here again is the bottom line specific to our discussion, and this logic is irrefutable and unassailable. You failed to address it. You are very selective in which of my points you answer. Try addressing this one:
If all is subjective, who cares about your subjective opinion, I have my own and I CAN'T BE WRONG in your system. If it is subjective, then I must be right, and you must be right. Therefore, when I argue that human value is objective, I CAN'T BE WRONG, because in your world, whatever view I hold is right under the rules of subjectivism. Thus, you contradict yourself when you argue the point. All you can do is remain silent - otherwise, you contradict yourself.
Gee. Maybe they were all designed that way from the start. Did evolutionists watch this "mutation" take place from one species to the next?
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.