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."
I am going to have to get my hands on Penrose!!! Please recommend a title to get me started, A-G?
The above quote is tantalizing.... Earlier on this thread, someone wrote that atoms do not possess consciousness or some such remark. I didn't challenge that; but really when you think about it, there's really no way to know at this point. So I wouldn't "rule it in" or "rule it out."
Count me in, Patrick. I do try to find those areas in which we agree. They are quite rare and thus priceless.
That's funny, Aric2000. Given the passionate faith that some people have in the theory of evolution, I think one could make a strong case that it bears all the marks of a ersatz religious sect!
I had always believed that the great strength of science was its rigorous, dispassionate objectivity. If things are "objective", then why get all passionate about them? Why should any scientific theory require a concerted public defense from its "adherents?"
I doubt creationism is "science"; but ID may very well be.
I have difficulty pinning myself to any organized system of belief. On most days I believe the "natural" universe, that which is accessible to study, is infinitely complex and mysterious. The "fact" that it exists, the "fact" that it comprises both time and space, lead me to believe that existence is God and that God is embodied in existence.
I am extremely skeptical of Biblical miracles. I would never base my life or my morality on claims of special revelations that are indistinguishable in form from modern charlatans. I do accept Jesus as my guide, but not in the expectation af any special reward. It just seem like the right thing to do. If that's a miracle, so be it.
With regard to Penrose, I recommend the two books - Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind in that order. I also recommend reading his critics and Penrose's response to them, such as the source of the quote.
The math can be tedious, but I'm sure you'll be looking for the underlying flow - and that's where Penrose is particularly engaging IMHO.
LOL, atlaw! It's not just wishy-washy; it indicates a flight from reality! :^)
I look at it this way: Children are born "little savages" and they must be taught right from wrong and acculturated into the society in which they are to live. Kids don't know enough (yet) to "decide" things for themselves. That's why God gave them parents. But if we leave the decisions to them anyway, they will probably just decide to continue to be little savages. :^)
I'm only half joking here. Thanks for writing!
It appears that you are on a good path. Of course, I pray for an astonishing miracle for you personally so that you'll know you are always loved, unconditionally, and will never be alone.
(Forgive me if this is sketchy; I haven't read it since it first came out and don't have it handy.) Near the beginning of the book, he lays out four possible hypotheses of consciousness. He labelled them A, B, C and D. "A" is that brains are computers, in effect. I forget what "B" was. He advocated "C", which boiled down to "consciousness is material but not algorithmic". "D" states that consciousness is not material (your position). I can't remember whether he rejects that explicitly, but he certainly doesn't adopt that as his position.
I would go so far as to say that the conscious, everyday perceptional frame of reference and mode of thinking is inadequate to really understand it and that this is because what we experience is not what's really going on at quantum levels.
That's precisely what I said: you can't describe the more fundamental in terms of the less fundamental. The point is that that weirdness (grokkable or not) is all we can reasonably mean when we talk about "material"; all the quotidian properties come along for the ride. To say that the quantum mechanical is immaterial is an oxymoron: quantum mechanics itself is the true essence of materiality.
You say that I can't truly understand quantum physics, and that's fine. It's a fair cop. But that doesn't affect my assertion of the materiality of consciousness one jot or tittle. All it means is that I can't fully grasp the nature of materiality, not that materiality isn't up to the task of supporting either a physical universe or a conscious mind. Materialism is not dead.
Oh, but did I fail to mention it? I don't believe that quantum weirdness plays any special role in consciousness in any case. I expect it will be discovered that the quotidian properties of macroscopic matter will be quite enough to account for all the properties of our minds.
Well, it's a start.
You're right, BB! ID doesn't contradict anything that we know, so it's got potential. All it needs is some persuasive evidence, and then it's a contender.
Well, that was John Dewey's idea of public education. It also seems to be gaining traction with conservatives. However, history belongs in history classes not in science classes.
Good grief, tpaine, your certainly have a "religion phobia."
Good grief Betty, why would you want to misconstrue my constitutional concerns as a phobia? Tar baby?
Of course I agree with you that the public schools must remain non-sectarian. But do you realize you can actually speak about God without reference to religion, or any religious sect?
I'm glad you now agree that the 1st amendment applies to public schools. --- But you've lost me again with your connection to religious 'speaking or sects'. -- You want some sort of generic respect for your concept of God taught in public schools?
Or is it really God Himself that you are "allergic" to?
I find it passing strange betty, that I respect your right to religious views, & freedom, -- but receive no respect in return for my own views. Can you explain this attitude?
I find it passing strange betty, that I respect your right to religious views, & freedom, -- but receive no respect in return for my own views. Can you explain this attitude?
Atheism is a religious view in the eyes of many (if not most) people. At the minimum, it is ideology. So to exclude all religious sects, atheism must also be excluded or it is given a monopoly in public schools.
Because there is a well-financed group of people out to destroy scientific metholodogy. Rather than arguing things out in the literature, this group seems more interested in using legislation to attack science.
A-G, P, I've been thinking that one of the things QM has succeeded in doing is exploding the "myth" of matter. (Bye-bye materialism.) I'm no expert in this field for sure, but it's beginning to look to me that, bottom line, all there is (really) is energy in different states. I'm speculating that there may be a relation to consciousness itself here.... So maybe, in the end, atoms are indeed "conscious" in a way we do not yet understand. But then, we really don't much understand what consciousness in general even is yet.
Just a curious thought for further investigation and meditation....
Thank you again! With hugs to you both!
For a short sampling of random taglines click here.
Doc, IMHO this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black."
I understand that ID can't even get published in the literature, or otherwise have a chance to argue its case on the merits in a public forum. The Darwinists who control the journals and publishing houses wouldn't hear of it. And they refuse to engage with ID-ists.
This is not right. This is censorship.
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.