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."
Ahhh. And I took it all wrong. If this is where you were going, I totally missed it and apologize. I agree that the State cannot suffer, and it is MY mistake for saying my statement incorrectly and missing your point totally.
It's still an appositvie; see below.
The sentence still makes perfect sense if you take the clause out.
Agreed; that the nature of appositives, or any independent clause or phrase. But the point of the appositive is to further explain or amplify on the word it with which it is in apposition. It tells us something more about it.
Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. APPOSITIVE, APPOSITION
A word, phrase, or clause that has the same referent and the same or a similar grammatical function as a preceding word or phrase is said to be an appositive, in apposition with that preceding word or phrase: in My father, that tall man over there, always votes Republican, the words that tall man over there form a phrasal appositive for father. Her name, Arabella, was also her mother’s name, illustrates a single-word appositive. In This news, that my brother is getting married, astonished me, the words enclosed in commas are a clausal appositive. 1
I don't know why you're arguing this point so much. Darwin may have limited his views to biology. Mainstream science may limit "Theory of Evolution" to biology.
A fair question. My concern is that many lay people come to discussions of scienctific issues with "baggage" -- misconceptions of what science is about, misunderstandings of specific aspects of science, and sometimes victims of outright strawman confabulations of people who, knowingly or not, are misrepresenting what a particular aspects of science really says.
This entire discussion started when "Fester..." made a statement to the effect that the Theory of Evolution (presumeably, the biological one) encompassed not only the origin of species, but also the origin of Life itself, and (worse still) the origin and development of the Universe. This is the worst sort of baggage to bring to a discussion of scientific issues, because the (biological) "Theory of Evolution" does not cover any such thing, as I have tried to explain so many times.
If we come to the table with different ideas about what the words (like "evolution") mean, we can't make many progress. That's why the adage is: "first, define your terms." For scientists, and people knowledgeable in scientific matters, that's already taken care of by the education or reading they've done. But when lay people show up carting Creationist Canards, the discussion quickly deteriorates, and all progress becomes hopeless.
That's why, when I see an erroneous assertion about what a scientific theory claims to explain, I bristle, and I try my best to rectify the misconception. Think of it as my little intellectual public service program.....
There are obviously those, however, that seek to expand "theories of evolution" to the history of the universe and they obviously have influence in our culture. [snip]
Like I've said before, there are people who try to use Geometry to prove that crop-circles are made by Space Aliens, but that doesn't mean anything because scientists (for the most part) don't get sucked into these scams.
That said, I've never seen any credible assertion that The biological theory of Evolution somehow explains geology, plate tectonics, planetary formation, stellar evolution, formation of the galaxies, or the orgin of the Universe.
And frankly, if some crackpot out there actually DOES think that, it doesn't matter. He has no credentials. The world is not flying apart at the seams because of fruit loops like the Time-Cube guy post raving utter tripe on the web. Heck, look at the weirdness that Ted Holden (may his seven FR incarnations of the merry "medved" clones rest in peace) posts on his website. He's laughed out of the room; nobody takes it seriously.
That said, I know that there are Creationist sites the claim that there are theories lurking out there darkly that encompass "life, the Universe, and everything" (Doug Adams), but I've never seen one. The Creationists have created a boogey-man to scare you, and when you read Dawkins, et.al., you see the boogey-man, but he's not really there, because he doesn't exist.
Please take some consolation in what I'm telling you; there is NO "well-known" scientific theory "traceable back to Darwin" that purports to explain "life, the Universe, and everything." That's why I kept asking you for a peer-reviewed science journal citation for one -- because there isn't any. So you can relax. Don't take crackpot sites seriously, and consider the possibility that some boogey-men aren't real. Fair enough?
You are doing it again. You are jumping to the conclusion that I am a moral relativist and only through religion can we not be moral relativists. I simply disagree. Morality is absolute. Rights are absolute. As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, man has the right to be free. The immoral man takes this right away from others. No need for a God (although I have admitted that in my limited knowledge, taught to me by your circle and the dot analogy, that there possibly could be a God). It is just not necessary to banish moral relativism from an individual.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg!
I agree that if there are going to be classes on Islamic History (true story) in public schools as an elective, then there is absolutely no reason to not allow an elective Bible class. There is much to be learned in that book. But if you want my honest opinion, our kids need to be taking mathematics, science and English classes 9 hours a day instead of Islam or Bible or Home Ec or Choir or Spanish or Italian or Basket Weaving or Audio-Video or Drama or etc.
"Hold muh beer an' watch this" syndrome.
I don't want to call that wrong, because that is how it is most commonly portrayed. It would be more accurate to say that there is one state that collapses once, but as that state is not tied to a specific location, the time of its collapse cannot be fixed. You see, the two measurement events most likely have a spacelike separation. The order of the two measurements is therefore frame-dependent, so it's just as reasonable to say that the "second" measurement caused the collapse of the state.
Is the subsequent measurement of the second photon even necessary if all the relevant information was given in the collapse of the first?
I guess I don't understand the question. Necessary to do what? One measurement is enough to collapse the state, but both are necessary to measure the correlation.
Ahhh... Now THAT'S a response worth pursuing. I may hold on to this tagline for a while... heheh...
Fair enough.
This entire discussion started when "Fester..." made a statement to the effect that the Theory of Evolution (presumeably, the biological one) encompassed not only the origin of species, but also the origin of Life itself, and (worse still) the origin and development of the Universe.
Exactly
This is the worst sort of baggage to bring to a discussion of scientific issues,
OK
If we come to the table with different ideas about what the words (like "evolution") mean, we can't make many progress. That's why the adage is: "first, define your terms."
I agree
For scientists, and people knowledgeable in scientific matters, that's already taken care of by the education or reading they've done.
So what exactly does Dawkins mean when he says "Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design?" And when did he join the creationist conspiracy?
Now the grammar:
Apositive: A word, phrase, or clause that has the same referent and the same or a similar grammatical function as a preceding word or phrase
That's a good definition of apositive. Keep it in mind as I continue.
The phrase
"Evolution, 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"
"Evolution" is the noun. A noun is a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing, and abstract idea
"the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today" is an adjective clause. This is a clause which acts as an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing, identifying, or quantifying words
Now does an adjective and a noun have the same grammatical function?
No disrespect was intended. -- Government was to stay out of religious matters. -- This was original intent according to the USSC.
Why is this concept so difficult for you, betty?
"Original intent, according to the USSC."
But not the original intent of the Framers. If you don't see this, tpaine, then I respectfully request that you and I continue to respectfully disagree.
The USSC doesn't just pull opinions out of a hat, betty. Rest assured that there was plenty of hard fact as to the framers intent taken into account in the courts arguments.
As I noted, "government was to stay out of religious matters". Do you now admit that you want government involved in religion? - I don't understand your objection to church/state separtion. - Please explain.
You already did. That's where I got the idea. I do read your stuff.
I disagree with that modern interpretation of the first amemdment,
The clear original intent of the first clause is to prevent government from passing laws that favor religions, & all the 'establishments' of religion.
afterall, the second clause is there for a purpose.
Exactly, it's there to protect relgious freedom, just as is the 1st clause.
There are many USSC decisions made since the '40's that a conservative would be loath to hang their hat on.
That depends on how much of a constitutional 'conservative' you are, imo.
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.