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."

That evolution has occurred is indeed a fact.

I agree with this sentence if you are using the word "evolution" in the generic sense, i.e. meaning (roughly) "change". Obviously populations of critters change over time, and have done so in the past.

The problem is that's not the definition which relates to this discussion. This kind of dishonest definition-shifting causes much (though not all) of the confusion in this debate. Let's try to stick to the original, relevant definition, shall we?

The "theory of evolution", if you want to call it that, can be loosely summarized (I guess) by the statement "all life is a product of random mutations and natural selection". This is a very interesting statement for which there is certain evidence (and heck I may even accept it as the best explanation available) but it's a theory for how life, in all its varieties, has arisen.

And that's all that will be stated in the disclaimer: "that evolution is a theory".

What's the problem?

The claim that the opposition to evolution is not based on religion is a shallow legal fiction--a bald-faced lie. No one is fooled.

P.S. This,like several other of the sentences you wrote to me, has very little relevance to our discussion. I don't know what you are referring to here. Certainly not anything I wrote.

Prove to me that god exists, beyond any reasonable doubt and we will talk. But, you can't, so we won't.

Prove to me that He does not. Philosopy tells us that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. You must find that out by yourself and a closed mind and a closed heart will keep you from finding out. If you try to understand the meaning of the Bible (instead of nitpicking it) you may find out. The Bible says that we have free will and therefore, IMHO, there can never be an absolute, certain, incontrovertible proof of God. However, to those with an open mind, such proof is not hard to find. The wonders of life, the Universe, the nature all around, us and the words of the Bible are proof for most.

The problem is that's not the definition which relates to this discussion. This kind of dishonest definition-shifting causes much (though not all) of the confusion in this debate.

The confusion of course is intentional. Evolutionists do not want to state exactly the terms of the theory of evolution so they can dance around and cover all the bases. A good example of this is punctuated equilibrium. When their precious bones showed that there were no intermediates, they made up (out of whole cloth) the theory of punctuated equilibrium. So if there is graudal change, they call it evolution, if there is sudden change, they call it evolution also. This is a very deceitful manner of argument and also makes evolution impossible to disprove.

Go back far enough, and the smartest and most complicated thing around is a simple unicellular, or maybe a slime mold. Then you have sponges and so forth. If you want to call the voyage from then to now "change" rather than "evolution," then OK, but I don't see how it helps you.

How about, "Let's try not to tap-dance away from the evidence." There is an incontrovertible convergence of independent lines of evidence that evolution has occurred.

The "theory of evolution", if you want to call it that, can be loosely summarized (I guess) by the statement "all life is a product of random mutations and natural selection". This is a very interesting statement for which there is certain evidence (and heck I may even accept it as the best explanation available) but it's a theory for how life, in all its varieties, has arisen.

That is the essential mechanism, although you can also include neutral drift. There are also detailed scenarios and patterns of speciation (allopatric, sympatric, polyploidy, etc.), which are a related but separate topic.

And that's all that will be stated in the disclaimer: "that evolution is a theory".

Again, you dodge the question of why the perfectly fact-based area of evolution is singled out for a disclaimer and not gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity ... But whether you continue to dodge or not, WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YOU.

P.S. This [i.e, "The claim that the opposition to evolution is not based on religion is a shallow legal fiction--a bald-faced lie. No one is fooled."], like several other of the sentences you wrote to me, has very little relevance to our discussion. I don't know what you are referring to here. Certainly not anything I wrote.

(Snort!)

Mr. Blueman,

Again I will say this, PROVE to me that god exists, or prove to me that god does NOT exist.

You cannot do either of those things. Therefore God is not a scientific subject, it is religious or philisophical subject.

I will not tell you that god does not exist, because I do NOT know if he does or not. But again, it is NOT scientific.

Now Dr. Frank,

I would much rather have a science class begin with the definition of theory, therefore the students understand from the get go what a theory is and why it is reasonable to question it in a scientific context. This I believe should be the MAIN beginning of ANY science course. A disclaimer about evolution is both unfair and unnecessary. All scientific theories should therefore have that disclamier. By having the class begin with the TRUE definition of "theory" would be the BEST way to please everyone, as far as I am concerned.

Creationists on the other hand will not go for this, because it must be a written disclaimer specifically aimed at evolution. Because of course they do NOT believe in evolution and therefore do not want anyone else to either.

But, then again, there are some reasonable creationists who would see this as not only a fair way, but a very reasonable one. Mr. Blueman above does not fit into this category.

and also makes evolution impossible to disprove.

Basically, I think you're exactly right. "Evolution" as such is basically impossible to disprove, because no matter what facts come up, scientists will alter their explanations accordingly and call the new explanation "evolution" again. Or they will say "look at what we've just learned about evolution!" (Interestingly, this raises the question of whether "evolution" is even really a "theory" at all, because theories are supposed to be falsifiable. And one is hard pressed to imagine what kind of evidence could ever arise which would cause scientists to say OK, "evolution" is wrong - short of God coming to earth and saying so, or the discovery of a crashed Noah's-ark spaceship with empty incubators which used to contain all the critters we know about, or something....)

But what this really comes down to is that "evolution" is little more than "materialism": "whatever has happened, has happened with no Creator, but due to naturalistic reasons". That's what "evolution" boils down to. I don't even think "the theory of evolution" is very interesting. Half of it is just the (completely boring) statement that some critters are more successful at having offspring than others, due to various reasons ("natural selection"). Big deal, who didn't know that? The rest of the "theory" is just the statement: "And that, children, explains completely how all species have arisen." And I don't even think that whether one believes this second statement is important. I don't care whether children are taught to believe it, or not. I'm fine with them remaining skeptical about it or even doubting it altogether. It's not important.

One thing that bothers me about the "evolutionist" side is that they think it's so important, for some reason, that children in biology classes are taught to believe the statement "mutations and natural selection completely explain how all species have arisen". Who cares whether they believe this or not?

And this is when I start to suspect that what scientists are really in such an uproar about is that they feel that the materialistic worldview is being threatened. And that's when I start to lose sympathy for the "evolution" side, because I don't think it's schools' job to push a materialistic worldview.

Now, let me be clear, I think that scientists have to take the materialistic approach, because (to make a long story short) that's what "science" is, careful analysis of the world using repeated experiments and assuming that this repetition can tell us something, i.e. no one's gonna "trick" us. In fact, that's all fine with me.

The only thing that bothers me in this "evolution" debate is when scientists get their panties all in a knot and overreact to (very reasonable) proposals such as putting an "it's a theory" disclaimer in a textbook. It IS A THEORY!! What's the problem?

Say what one will about "creationists", but it reaches a point where the "scientist" side doth protest too much, and it really irks me. Best,

Now you've shifted back to the relevant definition of "evolution", I guess. You're saying in effect that (according to the theory) humans had ancestors which were unicellular and/or slime mold (whatever, it's not clear). Yes, I agree, that is a better characterization of the "theory of evolution" - or at least one aspect of it.

And it's a theory. And textbooks will say so. What's your problem?

How about, "Let's try not to tap-dance away from the evidence." There is an incontrovertible convergence of independent lines of evidence that evolution has occurred.

Who are you arguing with? What makes you think I an "tap-danc[ing] away from" any evidence? I am not even arguing with "the theory of evolution" per se. You seem to be carrying an argument with someone else, not me.

Again, you dodge the question of why the perfectly fact-based area of evolution is singled out for a disclaimer and not gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity ...

I didn't "dodge" this question at all. In fact I addressed it head-on (see Posts #328 (which was TO YOU), #329, #331...). The answer is, essentially, "Who cares if evolution is 'singled out' for this disclaimer if the disclaimer is TRUE?"

I still don't see what objection you could possibly have to a textbook printing a true statement. The only conclusion I can draw is that Truth is not your primary concern here. So what is?

But whether you continue to dodge or not, WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YOU.

Huh? Okay, tell me, what's "going on with" me, mind-reader?

What a weird outburst. Maybe you're not as rational as I'd first thought. Seriously: what the hell are you talking about, here?

(Snort!)

And now you're becoming sub-literate? Please try to elaborate on these outbursts. In English. Or some recognizably human language. I don't have time for a snorting contest.

I would much rather have a science class begin with the definition of theory, therefore the students understand from the get go what a theory is and why it is reasonable to question it in a scientific context. This I believe should be the MAIN beginning of ANY science course.

Sounds OK to me.

A disclaimer about evolution is both unfair

"UNFAIR"? What the HELL does THIS kind of consideration have to do with anything?

This isn't a sports competition! This isn't the Evolutionist Team against the Creationist Team! For pete's sake man, grow UP. "UNFAIR" to say a TRUE STATEMENT????

I am interested in TRUTH versus FALSEHOOD. "Fairness" or lack thereof has got nothing to do with it, and DOES NOT BELONG in a scientific discussion.

and unnecessary.

Like I said in earlier posts, it's certainly necessary (or at least arguably so) since so many people don't seem to know that "evolution" is a theory.

Lots of people don't know the truth. To tell them "evolution is a theory" would help them know the truth. That's what school is for... I always thought.

(Of course that was all before you enlightened me that it's really some kind of stupid competition and the main consideration is to be "fair"....)

All scientific theories should therefore have that disclamier.

I've got no problem with that.

Creationists on the other hand will not go for this,

I don't know who are these "creationists" whereof you speak who will not go for placing "it's a theory" disclaimers in front of theories, but (if they exist) I disagree with them. Like I said, I've got no problem with putting such disclaimers. I think it's a grand idea.

And it's a theory. And textbooks will say so. What's your problem?

You responded to my post 12, which asked why only evolution is singled out as a subject matter. You wish, I suppose, to create the appearance of dealing with my question. It's an artless artifice.

The answer is, essentially, "Who cares if evolution is 'singled out' for this disclaimer if the disclaimer is TRUE?"

You don't know or care a thing about science. Please keep your religion in church where it belongs. The disclaimer is an obfuscation, attempting to imply that because evolution, only evolution, is "a theory," that it should be regarded as a hypothesis or conjecture rather than a fact.

But we have the fact that life has evolved over the history of the planet. We might as well be able to teach what we understand about that without interference from the witch-doctor crowd.

Creationists on the other hand will not go for this, because it must be a written disclaimer specifically aimed at evolution. Because of course they do NOT believe in evolution and therefore do not want anyone else to either.

The disclaimer, as you no doubt realize, is not an attempt to explain the role of theory in science but to capitalize upon ignorance of that very thing. The disclaimer is aimed solely at evolution. The disclaimer attempts to discredit evolution by labeling it "only a theory." An understanding of what a scientific theory really is would only disarm the disclaimer and force the witch-doctors to find another tar brush.

You responded to my post 12, which asked why only evolution is singled out as a subject matter.

Yes, asked and answered. How many repetitions do you need?

"Evolution is a theory" is a true statement. I see nothing wrong with putting true statements in books. And I don't consider the whine "why not put this disclaimer in front of other theories too??" to be a serious rebuttal, even if you do.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with putting such a disclaimer in front of other theories too. So that's that, we're both happy.

How many times do you want me to repeat all this?

You wish, I suppose, to create the appearance of dealing with my question. It's an artless artifice.

As opposed to an artful artifice, I suppose....

You don't know or care a thing about science.

I don't? Gee, you sure know a lot about my biography from a few posts.

(These silly ad hominem attacks sure make the evolutionist side look more "scientific". Lucky for evolutionists, I don't judge them all by your behavior. But it doesn't help.)

Please keep your religion in church where it belongs.

What "religion"? When did I even bring up religion here? Are you under the impression that you know what my "religion" is? Are you certain that I even have a "religion"?

More silly ad hominem. It's rather sad because you don't have a leg to stand on either. You don't know jack about my biography and yet you're resting a huge portion of your fallacious argument on it for some reason.

The disclaimer is an obfuscation, attempting to imply that because evolution, only evolution, is "a theory,"

I never said that "only evolution" is a theory. I also think that all other theories are theories too. Please try to keep straight who you're talking to. You keep arguing with someone else (or perhaps with phantoms in your own head), not with me, because I never said any such thing.

that it should be regarded as a hypothesis or conjecture rather than a fact.

A "theory", in basic terms, is a hypothesis or conjecture: a hypothesis or conjecture about how stuff works or happens, for which there is some amount of evidence.

So actually I agree 100% with the statement that evolution (the whole "theory of evolution" shebang, not just evolution meaning "change in populations") is a "hypothesis or conjecture rather than a fact", for which there is evidence, and I think a responsible science teacher would frame it in these terms (followed by a presentation of the evidence) to her students. All of which is perfectly consistent with putting the truthful disclaimer at the front of the book, as is proposed. Best,

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.