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."

Thank you so much for sharing your beliefs!

I have a hard time seeing any difference between your statements and metaphysical naturalism. Do you agree with their views?

But overall I am troubled by the attempt to spread the word of one's personal revelations. Too many charismatic bullies have taken this path.

I personally do not have the gift of evangelizing or preaching or teaching. But if anyone asks, I'm always glad to give the reason for the hope that is within me.

Unseemly behavior saddens me, especially when it comes Christians.

We Christians are obliged to love everyone, including our enemies. Admittedly, it is not easy to pray for people like Osama bin Laden, but I do. If he were born again, he would also be obliged to love everyone, including Israelis and Americans.

Part of being born again is that the old person is occupying the same house as the new one. And that old nature can be provoked, can be vindictive and can be a bully, too. Sigh ... we claim progress, not perfection, while in the body.

If the clause "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" is an apostive to the subject noun "evolution" why did you initially say the subject noun "referred" to said clause in Post 3565?

A thousand pardons; sloppy choice of words on my part. I should have said the noun and the apositive refer to each other.

What the subject noun "refers" to is the object of the sentence "the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology."

Yes; subjects refer to objects, so now we have "evolution = "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" [by virtue of the apositive] and "evolution" = "the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology." [by virtue of the verb "is"]

Hence, by transitive property of equivalence relations, we obtain: "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" [which the word "evolution" stands for in this instance] = "the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology." Or to put it in concise form:

"evolution (a process of change)" = "the sequence of events...." = "a central organizing principle of ...."

"Evolution," as it's being used in that sentence, is "the central organizing principle."

Yes, now you've got it! "Evolution" [defined as a process of change], which in this instance means "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."

Nowhere is there any suggestion that the word "evolution" is being used by the author to refer to some mythical Theory of Evolution encompassing "life, the Universe, and everything." And it clearly can't be referring to the theory of Darwinian Evolution, in as much as biological evolution can't possibly be an "organizing principle" (central or otherwise) for geology and Cosmology! The only meaningful interpretation for the word "evolution" in that sentence is as defined by Webster: "a process of formation or change; development."

Now, you can say that "central organizing principle" is an axiom -- which I reject but one I strongly suspect that those who claim "evolution reveals an universe without design" seek to establish. You can claim it as a law, which I don't think anyone scientifically minded will support. Or you can call it what it is -- a theory attempting to tie together the historical sciences.

None of the above.

It ["evolution" -- "a process of change" -- which in this instance is: "the sequence of events...."] is a "central organizing principle" common to biology, geology, and cosmology. An "organizing principle" isn't an axiom, it isn't a law, and it most definitely isn't a scientific THEORY.

That said, you keep referring to this "well-known" mystical "Theory of Evolution" encompassing life, the Universe and everything. I've never heard of it; no one I know has heard of it. I've particpated in both CREVO threads and Cosmology threads on FR for several years now, and if such a theory existed and were well known, I think I'd remember it. So, once again, I'll ask you for a citations to articles in mainstream peer-reviewed science journals describing and discussing the details of this all-powerful theory. To deliver the mail, it must provide an explanatory framework or model for the phenomona encompassed by biology, geology, and Cosmology. I will parenthetically add, that if such an extraordinary theory existed, it would surely have won a Nobel prize, perhaps in multiple categories.

But absent such definitive evidence, I must reluctantly conclude you are confabulating this "well-known" mystical "Theory of Evolution" encompassing life, the Universe and everything out of whole cloth, or are the victim of a terrible misconception.

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.