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."
You are in luck, for I have never heard of atheism being taught in schools. You may argue against the teaching of evolution, but I know of no curriculum (and I may be wrong) that has the teacher tell the children "THERE IS NO GOD". I agree that that would be wrong. In no way should a public teacher tell the children about the existence or non-existence of a God. And I really don't think that happens... If it does, it is rare and the teacher should be punished just as harshly as if he/she had taught the children about the Great Worm Zur'ian and the Sacred Witch.
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..
It appears you and I are on the same wavelength (pun intended.)
I also do not see quantum mechanics (bosons, etc.) as the most fundamental material level. IMHO, the fields themselves - as they manifest dimension/geometry - have that distinction.
I did, but you consider it foolish.
The Constitution wants the government (and public schools) to be impartial, but that is impossible to do without some group taking offense - especially now that even the mention of a generic God in the Pledge of Allegiance can cause such anger.
On the other side, using taxpayer funds to teach public school children the main tenet of metaphysical naturalism (theory of evolution) without a counter-balance also causes anger.
But even asking for the mention of a counter-balance causes more anger from the scientists, who like the Constitution, are trying to be impartial to religious sects.
Why do you have constitutional concerns, tpaine? The First Amendment protects religion. The religious clause is Number One on the First Amendment list of protected rights, and only then come free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances. It seems crystal clear to me that LFF is acting within its constitutional rights.
You seem to suggest that these rights, though freely available to secularists, are expressly denied to religious believers. But what basis do you have to think such a thing?
tpaine, I respect you enormously as a person, and think of you as my long-time "FReeper friend". It's just sometimes I have the most difficult time following your logic. So maybe I just don't understand you (or you me). Which is completely regrettable.
Atheism is a religious view in the eyes of many (if not most) people.
I'm agnostic, -- but in any case, viewing a non-religious atheist, an unbeliever, - as a competitor in another type of religion is the beholders problem, not that of the nonbeliever. - Unless force enters the picture.
At the minimum, it is ideology.
Sure, non-sectarian constitutionalism can be viewed as an ideology also. But its the only 'ideology' we have that protects everyones rights. Can you agree?
So to exclude all religious sects, atheism must also be excluded or it is given a monopoly in public schools.
Excellent argument for abandoning the concept of public schools, right?
Indeed, impartiality to all religious belief (including non-belief or doubt) - may very well be impossible to attain - in which case the public school methodology is in conflict with the Constitution.
Personally, I'd rather it be a competitive industry with regulatory achievement requirements only. But I am a purist to the point that I believe property taxes have nullified the right of a citizen to own real estate, since the government has the power to attach for collection.
Fair enough, PatrickHenry!
It could be that the problem here is that your way of thinking is so far removed from mine that communication is extremely difficult. It may be that your mind has been so muddled by narcissistic relativism that you are having trouble understanding my reasoning. So, let me try one more time to present my position which is also the truth of the matter.
There is a qualitative difference between YOUR perspective on value, and the real objective value of a human being (by "objective" - I mean universal, essential, independent of human preference). My perspective is illustrated in the maxim "all men are created equal" - this is an objective self-evident truth. My neighbor has just as much objective worth as a human being as my wife, even though my wife is more valuable to me. An orphan with no one to love him has just as much value as a human being as a man with 1,000 friends. Human worth is qualitative not quantitative - get it? Yes, to you, your wife has more value, but you are biased by your love for your wife (understandable and quite normal). But, there is a difference between what I like and what is right and true. You have made them one and the same - this is a qualitative error on your part. There is a difference between your perspective and what is real. Perspectives are often wrong! Slave-holders may like to own slaves, but it is wrong regardless of their like or dis-like; similarly, all human beings are created equal whether or not you like this person more than that person. Again, objective equality is qualitative, not quantitative. Your focus on personal "perspectives" reminds me of the postmodernist self-refuting writings of Foucault (good for a door stop).
It was wrong to slaughter jews whether or not Hitler believed he was right. Do you dispute that statement? In real qualitative terms, all people are equally valuable - they are created equal - but you cann't measure their worth as you have suggested - you are trying to add a quantitative dimension to human worth and that only works form the personal perspective. The personal perspective is important, but this is separate and distinct from the objective qualitative perspective. Your attempt to place quantitative value on human life is akin to the mentality of a slave-trader. Slavery was wrong and for this reason, it was abolished in the West (funny it sill goes on in Sudan and other arab countries). It was on this principle of equality of all men that our nation was founded and has flourished. When Americans lose sight of this principle, tyranny is around the corner. People like you scare me for this reason.
Oh that's so interesting, A-G! We do live in exciting times!
What's your impression of string theory? Its multidimensionality, with nested dimensions, is a most striking idea. (I'm just getting into it, so don't know much about it really.)
Yes. 100% accurate, although this needs to be followed through that the government must also be protected from religion. If ANY form of religion is favored over another, than there exists oppression against the second religion. Therefore, in order to protect every religion, there can be no connection between Church and State (which I understand is unfortunately not the case anymore). I absolutely agree that atheism should also not be taught in state schools (even though it is not a religion by any means).
There may be a good reason the Designer left Vitamin C capabilities out of these monkeys. Has this deficiency been shown to be a defect similar to a tooth infection?
There was absolutely no discussion in the founding documents about "protecting govt. from religion" - ALL of the discussion and concern had to do with protecting religion and the people from the government! The Constitution established a civil government (no constitutional possibility for a theocracy even is someone wanted to establish one) based upon judeo-Christian principles (derived from the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Puffendorf, and Blackstone). They did not want a repeat of the Church of England's (THE state church) persecution of other denominations (remember the pilgrims?). The founders did believe that one "religion" not be favored over another, but in the correct context, they meant "Christian denomination" since America was 99% Christian at that time. Let's be historically accurate about the intent of our founders. Nowhere in any founding document is the term "separation of church and state" mentioned. Nowhere.
Why do you have constitutional concerns, tpaine? The First Amendment protects religion.
At #3559, I made a rebuttal of your conceptons about the 1st. It also prohibits all levels of government from promoting the 'establishments of religions'. -- We agreed, I thought, that this included public schools, no?
The religious clause is Number One on the First Amendment list of protected rights, and only then come free speech, free press, peaceable assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances. It seems crystal clear to me that LFF is acting within its constitutional rights. You seem to suggest that these rights, though freely available to secularists, are expressly denied to religious believers. But what basis do you have to think such a thing?
By their quoted demand, where they ---- "said the state should force publishers". -- Thus, the LLF are calling for the state to violate the constitution, not 'redress grievances'.
tpaine, I respect you enormously as a person, and think of you as my long-time "FReeper friend". It's just sometimes I have the most difficult time following your logic. So maybe I just don't understand you (or you me). Which is completely regrettable.
We have completely different styles of writing betty. -- You lose me in word volume, perhaps I lose you by not enough.
Not much different than an agressive assumption of knowledge passed off in turn as fact. The ultimate cause of why things are the way they are is beyond the scope of peon evoltuionist "scientists." Sure, they can examine and point out what appear to be similar deficiencies in the universe, and so can creationists. But they can never adequately explain them.
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.