Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[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."

[f.Christian]

< xm > . . .

Yes and Pol Pot, the observer, imparted no value to humans and slaughtered them as he would your dogs. But he can't be wrong in your despressing little world. If you call him morally wrong, you are imparting a universal value on human life, and would contradict yourself. You can only say that he acted subjectively according to the worth he assigned human beings. I find it very telling that many atheists are also marxists and communists - they fit like a glove! The practical implications of your philosophy can be found in the killing fields of Cambodia


< xm/ >

sentis(vape retroll maybe - - - clone // twin?) . . .

To: f.Christian

Sorry this took awhile to respond too christmas functions drew my attention. What do I base my life on? What am I required to base it on? My life doesn't need a base outside of myself to be fullfilled. Even if i didn't base my life on rational thought I would still not need a basis to be complete. You seem to need the support of a mythology to help you overcome life's problems I do not. Your life may not be complete without a savior to fill you with hope. I need no false hope I am complete unto myself. Even if every man woman and child on this earth believed in Christ I would have no need. I do not need the consensus of the community.

I search for rational truth because that is where reality resides. Truth is not subjective, truth is not objective, and Truth is not subject to the varied Mythologies of this Planet many of these mythologies being much older than the one you embrace. Truth is absolute. That is why in the search for an absolute truth you must often throw off the weak beliefs of degenrate religion or even the hard won beliefs gained from personal insight. Truth cares for none of that.

God is not truth God is a crutch for those to weak to cut away the dead limbs, shoot the sick dog, or take that first unaided step into the light of reason.


47 posted on 12/22/2002 3:46 PM PST by Sentis


fC . . .

. . . "break a few 'shells // eggs' to make omelets" - - - commie social darwin atheist evolutionistas ! ! !

[tpaine]

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.
3429 -physicist-

Indeed. -- So far our constitution has done fair to middleing job of keeping control over sociopaths.

-- Threads like these serve to remind us how prevelent , and how diversified such pathology has become in our society. I'd guess its due to the period of rapid change.

[betty boop]

...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.... 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.

Yep. There's the rub. I hate to say it, but it seems clear enough that there are at least a few people at FR who would like to give a monopoly to the "evo" side of the debate, at least as far as educating (indoctrinating) our children is concerned. I wonder how these people square that imperative with the First Amendment....

V3, thank you so much for your insightful and thought-provoking posts. Please check out #3416 if you have the time and interest?

[scripter]

Thanks. I'm proud to have a screen name the same as your school -- altho, please don't tell me I spelled "life" wrong in Latin -- dadgummit, I hate it when that happens!

As we understand it, life can be vita or vitae - the teacher preferred the latter spelling so she convinced the principal to go with it. :-) I appreciate your prayers for our school. We may move out of California to a more home school friendly state, like Texas.

[Junior]

You must prove the method before you can use it.

Since when? The method I used was IF-THEN. I defined my variables and I drew my conclusions. Your sole argument has been: "You are wrong, so I'm right." I have yet to see how one objectively quantifies "value" or "worth." How do you objectively determine the relative worth between two individuals? Do you use a grading sheet? What criteria do you place upon that grading sheet? How were the criteria arrived at?

I have simply stated there is no objective way to quantify "value" or "worth" so they are subjective and are based solely upon the values assigned by the observer. There is no objectively measurable property called "worth." If there were, you (and anyone else, for that matter) could show how it is measured.

[exmarine]

How does one objectively measure "value" or "worth?"

WE are not talking about any ole object, we are specifically talking about human value - it is not measurable. You can't measure the worth of human life - it is priceless. Don't you know that? You are one scary dude. We have a name for people like you - sociopath.

Human worth is self-evident. Read the Declaration of Independence. It conforms to human experience and reality. My wife has value becuase SHE IS a person. I love her and the love I feel for her feels meaningful and profound - because it is! The love you feel, however, is nothing more than a chemical process in your brain - the result of some stimuli - matter in motion. Whose model is more desirable? Yours is the preferred model of Stalin and Mao and other evil sociopaths. Your philosophy is UGLY and empty, and the results and consequences of it are UGLY and end in total despair. Under your system, you cannot argue against racism, or genocide - these are subjective to the Stalins of this world!

Persons have universal value whether or not you OR YOUR PAL STALIN believe it. It's an universal fact that applies in 100% of all cases. That's where the concept of human rights come from. You are in disagreement with every civilized government in the history of the planet, save for those that slaughtered humans wholesale!

[exmarine]

Since when? The method I used was IF-THEN.

Bull! Your method is empirical - you admitted it! Here you go again changing categories! Need I repost what you said before to remind you? hmm? I suppose honesty is also subjective hmmm?

[Junior]

WE are not talking about any ole object, we are specifically talking about human value - it is not measurable

If it is not measurable, it is not objective. End of story.

[Junior]

I never denied it was empirical. Are you trying to banter semantics, now? BTW, read my previous post.

[Junior]

I never denied it was empirical. Are you trying to banter semantics, now? BTW, read my previous post.

[f.Christian]

The new clergy . . . gods - - - aristocracy ! ! !

Main Entry: ar·is·toc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: "ar-&-'stä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French aristocratie, from Late Latin aristocratia, from Greek aristokratia, from aristos best + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1561
1 : government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
2 a : a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified b : a state with such a government
3 : a governing body or upper class usually made up of an hereditary nobility
4 : the aggregate of those believed to be superior

[Alamo-Girl]

How do you objectively determine the relative worth between two individuals? Do you use a grading sheet? What criteria do you place upon that grading sheet? How were the criteria arrived at?

Er, I can't resist one more time with the legal definition. Under the Supreme Court, looking at two people, both have the value of the highest of the two. Under the law, you are of equal value to the Pope - but that is because in the U.S. are men are legally "created equal" - i.e. valued equally.

[tpaine]

"I hate to say it, but it seems clear enough that there are at least a few people at FR who would like to give a monopoly to the "evo" side of the debate, at least as far as educating (indoctrinating) our children is concerned. I wonder how these people square that imperative with the First Amendment...." -BB-


So Betty, -- you reject the conclusion below?


--- "the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group" ---
---- "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"


-- To me, it is fairly obvious that Christian groups are the ones trying to 'indoctrinate kids into religion'.
And, --- that the state is simply obliged to 'make no law respecting' any establishments of religions.

[balrog666]

To rephrase an old aphorism: Trying to teach an idiot to correctly use logic only wastes your time and annoys the idiot.

[Junior]

So, the fellows who blew up the Twin Towers are as valuable as Mother Theresa? If you had a choice between saving the life of Mother Theresa or those fellows who would you choose? How about the choice between your child and a perfect stranger? We obviously value some people more than we value others (kin over friends, friends over strangers, etc.). Because your subset of kin and friends does not intersect my subset of the same, we will value different people more highly than others. Hence, my argument that values are purely subjective.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker

[tpaine]

From my remarks at #3459:

I've never seen you win an arguement at FR.
Your usual method is, -- when pressed you make personal attacks, then put your opponent on ignore, and declare victory. -- Quite a silly ploy. -3459-

Exmarine:
"Yours is the preferred model of Stalin and Mao and other evil sociopaths. Your philosophy is UGLY and empty, and the results and consequences of it are UGLY and end in total despair. Under your system, you cannot argue against racism, or genocide - these are subjective to the Stalins of this world!
Persons have universal value whether or not you OR YOUR PAL STALIN believe it. It's an universal fact that applies in 100% of all cases. That's where the concept of human rights come from. You are in disagreement with every civilized government in the history of the planet, save for those that slaughtered humans wholesale!" -EM-

________________________________

I rest my case.

[f.Christian]

Flux values . . . flux science - - - flux logic // rhetoric - - - evolution!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and I do understand your point!

The debate on the meaning of human "value" is running a similar course as the debate on the meaning of "evolution." There is common meaning and a more technical meaning.

My use of the Pope as an example (as with your use of the terrorists) was inappropriate because the Pope is not a U.S. citizen.

But U.S. citizens do enjoy equal protection under the law. So in the eyes of the law, my daughter is of equal value to any other citizen of the U.S. including George W. Bush. A person appearing for trial on a murder charge is likewise equal - judgment is based on law and not who we are.

[f.Christian]

non flux . . . very severe statists(tyranny // facsists) - - - social engineers - - - evolution(RELIGION // ideology) ! ! !