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 your post! Indeed, we live in interesting times!!!

The superstring theory is widely accepted. The resonance aspect comports with what I believe to be true, spiritually speaking. OTOH, the number of dimensions has always been troubling to me, simply because I feel it ought more elegant than that (LOL!) Fermilab on the search for extra dimensions

Here is a consortium working on the frontier: Space-Time-Matter Consortium. I've been following their work for years:

Welcome to the homepage of the 5D Space-Time-Matter consortium. We are a group of physicists and astronomers working on a 5-dimensional version of general relativity. Our work differs from Kaluza-Klein theory (the basis of superstrings) in that we do not assume compactification of the extra dimension. This means that new terms (those involving the 5th coordinate) enter into physics, even at low energies. In 4D spacetime these can be interpreted as matter and energy. We move them to the right-hand side of the 4D field equations and take them to describe an induced energy-momentum tensor. In fact, we have shown that no 5D energy-momentum tensor is required. 4D matter of all kinds can arise as a manifestation of a higher-dimensional vacuum. This is one way to realize Einstein's dream of transmuting the "base wood" of matter into the "pure marble" of geometry -- that is, of unifying the gravitational field, not just with other fields, but with its source as well.

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.

These as well are great points. I am beginning to see your logic as well, though I don't agree with everything you say, it is very interesting.

I see that you believe that all life (human in this case) has objective value. I agree that human life is unique and, dare I sound cliche, precious. But their does exist subjective value as well. You say that those that think this way scare you because this is the thought process of fascists, slave-traders, and Stalin. The opposite can be expressed towards anybody who holds that life is perfectly objective. This leads down towards the path of pure socialism (not Stalinesque sociopathic-socialism). All are objectively worthy and therefore we should pool all resources for the betterment of all equal brothers? How can we ever support a war if the people we are fighting are just as important and valuable as we are? I don't think you are properly explaining your theories on the connection between subjective value of human life and moral relativism. I don't think you necessarily have to be a moral relativist if you value human life subjectively. I can value the life of a German less than an American, and a Pakistani less than a German (hypothetically, of course). I can value the life of my neighbor less than the life of my brother. Morality does not immediately go out the window at that point. That low line objective value (that I see and almost agree with you on) must also come into play, that we are all human beings under the same objective morality (Ahhh!) and must respect each other if everybody is playing by these objective rules... Once you break those rules, than I will treat you like the inferior dog that you are!!! Just kidding, I wanted to end with dramatic effect. Might be total drivel, but I'm on the fly here.

If ANY form of religion is favored over another, than there exists oppression against the second religion.

Yes, B. Rabbit. This was a major concern of the Framers, who had the European experience of the horrific religious violence and warfare of the 16th century vividly in mind: Monarchs kept "establishing" the religious sect of their preference as the "national church," and all the folks not in the "official" church were often persecuted, exterminated, church property seized, etc. The Framers sought to make sure that could never happen in America.

On the bright side, the ensuing religiously-motivated emigration (e.g., the English Puritans, et al.) to the shores of the New World made for the birth of the American nation.

So it is not at all surprising that the first phrase of the First Amendment's religion clause forbids Congress to establish a state church. Yet the second phrase, it seems to me, does not banish God from the public square. Indeed, in the early Republic, there were many national days of public thanksgiving declared -- the thanks being given expressly understood to be thanks to God.

Let me get this straight.

1. Nowhere in any founding document is the term "separation of church and state" mentioned. Nowhere. -you

2. ALL of the discussion and concern had to do with protecting religion and the people from the government!-you again

3. The Constitution established a civil government (no constitutional possibility for a theocracy even is someone wanted to establish one)-You time 3!

Now wait a second... And I am beginning to respect and enjoy your comments here.... but your first point is refuted by your second and third points. It is not stated in 5 words "separation of church and state" but you said yourself that the religions are protected from the State (Point #2) and that there is no chance for theocracy rearing it's ugly head into the country (Slighly loosened point #3). Maybe not directly stated, but stated nonetheless. What do you think?

It also prohibits all levels of government from promoting the 'establishments of religions'. -- We agreed, I thought, that this included public schools, no?

No, tpaine, we do not agree on the meaning of the establishment clause. It isn't about what "religious establishments," such as churches and so forth, may or may not do. What the plain language means (or meant to the Framers) was that the government is prohibited from establishing an official state church: The government is barred from "picking a religious sect" and making it the national religion, nor may it favor one creed, confession, or sect over any other.

But even if we were to agree on the meaning you have in mind, that establishment indeed directly and unequivocally refers to churches, religious sects, religious schools, etc., the language says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So on that basis, we would have to take this to mean -- using your interpretation of "establishment" -- that Congress is forbidden to make any law with respect to churches and religious sects, etc.

Parse the language for yourself, tpaine. It is so clear I don't know how it got so muddied up in the public understanding as it has in recent times. I guess we have the ACLU to thank for that.

So it is not at all surprising that the first phrase of the First Amendment's religion clause forbids Congress to establish a state church. Yet the second phrase, it seems to me, does not banish God from the public square. Indeed, in the early Republic, there were many national days of public thanksgiving declared -- the thanks being given expressly understood to be thanks to God.

This is absolutely correct. I have a question for the "separation of church and state" people for which no one has yet been able to give an adequate answer: Why is it that prayer in school was not in dispute for the first ~200 years of our republic (till 1962)? PRECEDENT supports prayer in school, but gives no constitutional justification for the ruling in 1962. So much for precedent! The liberal elites now make our laws! They are re-inventing the Constitution (living breathing document!?) according to their anti-theistic and anti-Christian worldviews. John Adams had it right when he said our Constitution was written "for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other." The Constitution is only as good as the moral character of the people who guard it. If it can be reinterpreted and reinvented according to the times and culture, then none of its truths can be considered truths that transcend time, and if none of its truths can transcend time if the culture doesn't like them, then it is relativistic. If it is relativistic, then it is absolutely worthless because it becomes subject to the whims of the cultural elite. So much for truth!

I wonder why did the U.S. Congress publish the first American bible if total separation of church and state was their intent? (It was the Aitken bible in 1780s.)

One can always claim human value to be objective and self-evident; however, this is an assumption. "We hold these truths to be self-evident" implies others may not. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, "all men are created equal" is an arbitrary statement with little or no grounding in reality. Folks prior to 1776 certainly didn't hold this view (the "divine right of kings," et al) and many still do not, so to them it is not self-evident. As a First Principle, the above statements leaves much to be desired.

What I'm driving at, in a round-about way, is that your claim that human beings have an objective value is not supportable by the evidence. You may believe it to be and you may gear your moral actions around this belief, but you're basically starting from an arbitrary First Principle. The rest of the universe does not put much value on human life. Acts of God claim hundreds of thousands of lives per year, so He obviously does not hold us in as high regard as you believe. Other organisms regularly kill human beings, so they obviously don't value human life. Human beings regularly slaughter each other over trivial matters, so they don't place a high value on people.

You value human life highly. I value human life highly. Neither of us likes to see people hurt or killed -- it strikes at the very core of our upbringing. However, as humans go we are the exception rather than the norm. Moslems shoot their women for showing a little ankle; Chinese soldiers threw themselves suicidally at their enemies; Russians regularly resorted to decimation to keep the peasants in line. There is no evidence for an objective value for human life.

You can claim an objective value for people, but you cannot prove it; the available evidence does not fit your theory.

ID does not get published because it doesn't have anything to say -- at least not yet. For an ID article to be publishable it would have to make some testable assertion.

Yes, js1138. That's what Doc said, too. On that basis, it will never be publishable. For how is one going to put the Intelligent Designer on the stage such that he/she/it might be "tested?" It seems the Darwinists are insisting they will settle for nothing less, and it (obviously) cannot happen.

Pretty neat way to ditch the whole issue, no?

Other things were discussed, of course, but with respect to the Establishment Clause, there was no discussion about protecting the STate from the Church. Find me a quote from any founder that was concerned with proteting the state from the church.

The term "separation of church and state" only appears one time - in a letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists - and it is taken out of context by all who use it today! Find me another instance where this phrase is used. Cultural elites have twisted this phrase to mean "TOTAL separation of the state and any type of religious overtone". There is a problem though - this is contrary to original intent. Note that the Supreme Court is emblazone with the 10 Commandments. The Aitken bible had the inscription "for use by schools" (hmmm). Also, the Supreme Court declared in 1896 that the United States is a "Christian nation"! (not govt. mind you, but nation). These are all historical and cannot be refuted. History does have truth and it can be twisted into lies, and those lies can then be used to indoctrinate unsuspecting impressionable people who trust what they are taught must be true.

My points are not contradictory. The Constitution sets up a civil govt. But, that civil govt. is based upon judeo-Christian moral principles. It is irrefutable. Anyone familiar with the document will have to admit this.

When it came to religion, they were concerned with protection people (and their churches) from the govt., not the government.

Not mentioned . . .

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern imbecile age

I have a question for the "separation of church and state" people for which no one has yet been able to give an adequate answer: Why is it that prayer in school was not in dispute for the first ~200 years of our republic (till 1962)? PRECEDENT supports prayer in school, but gives no constitutional justification for the ruling in 1962. So much for precedent! The liberal elites now make our laws! They are re-inventing the Constitution (living breathing document!?) according to their anti-theistic and anti-Christian worldviews. John Adams had it right when he said our Constitution was written "for a moral and religious people and is inadequate for the government of any other."

Read this whole thing, please. I think I start out weak and get strong at the end. Will you agree that the Christian religion dominated everything European at this time (200 years ago)? For this reason, a country declaring a freedom of religion (even if it was just freedom for Judeo-Christian beliefs) was revolutionary and radical for its time. The concept is just, and it has simply evolved (ironically) to a more enlightened state. Church is for the home, and nobody can touch it there. People can assemble together and worship anything they want, and nobody can stop them. This is wonderful and just. But the idea of pure religious freedom, logically, means that the state cannot touch it and cannot be touched by it. Much of the Constitution has evolved, and although some of it has become skewed by liberals, this is not one of the issues. Much like the freedoms designated by the Constitution directly or by omission did not apply to anybody but white males. I imagine that betty boop and Alamo Girl are pretty happy about the evolution of Constitutional rights there. Slavery was precedent as well. Nobody can argue that the breaking of that precedent was in spirit with the Constitution, not an opposition to it...

Do you think that you would approve with the Baptist Church taking some control of the government? The Unitarian? The spirit of the Constitution, in fact in any free country, religion has to be kept out of government just as government must be kept from religion. This should be the creed of any free man no matter religious or atheistic.

But, that civil govt. is based upon judeo-Christian moral principles.

I think that the Commandments (and the Constitution) were created out of the logic of the human mind. They are moral, and morality can be rightly based on them (minus the ones about idols, name in vain, worship only me, etc, my Biblical knowledge has dropped substantially, sorry).

I imagine that betty boop and Alamo Girl are pretty happy about the evolution of Constitutional rights there.

Considering all the previous discussion of the word evolution that is a remarkable statement, since our equal protection was guaranteed by the addition of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

After all, the mechanism of adding to the genetic code is a major contention by the critics of the theory of evolution - including intelligent design, creationism and directed panspermia.

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.