Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[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."

[viaveritasvita]

"...it is your job to teach your religious beliefs to your children, it is YOUR responsibility, not the public schools!!"

Stop teaching your religion, evo disguised as science, with it's implication that there is no God, and we'd be in agreement.

[Aric2000]

Give me a break G3K, god CANNOT be proven or DISPROVEN, therefore the question is not asked by science.

God is a philisophical/religious notion, NOT a scientific one.

The big bang can be studied directly, through radiotelescopes etc, abiogenisis can be studied directly as well. Are you telling me that science can study god directly as well, don't give me crap about the universe being the creation of god and therefore god can be proven either. That's circular reasoning and you know it.

Can god himself/herself/itself be studied DIRECTLY? If not, it cannot be studied by science. There are NO fossils of god, no fossil light of god, there is no direct evidence of god anywhere, therefore god cannot be studied by science and therefore CANNOT be used by science.

Please, please. please, GET A CLUE....

[Aric2000]

BS, Evolution is science, NOT religion as you seem to think, or have been brainwashed into believing.

Is it sciences fault that all the facts fit into the theory so well, that it most likely is what occurred? Is it sciences fault that 99% of scientist believe in the validity of the Theory of Evolution based on the facts currently on hand? Is it science fault that it CANNOT use god, because god CANNOT be proven NOR Disproven?

So sorry, but we do not teach a religious theory in science class, otherwise it would be called a religion class.

Use your common sense please, instead of the techniques taught you by creationist zealots.

Evolution is science, NOT religion, ID/Creationism are religion, because there is NO scientific theory that can use god as a causation. Therefore, ID/Creationism ARE NOT science.

Science and evolution DO NOT STATE that there is NO god, and they CANNOT state that there is a god. God CANNOT be used in science. Have I said it enough times to get through that Creo head of yours?

Therefore, if you wish to teach your children that GODDIDIT, then TEACH IT TO THEM, but it is NOT sciences, nor the public schools job.

If the Theory of Evolution offends your sensibilities so much, then pull your child from the class when it is being taught, but do not expect Science to change facts because they are politically incorrect to you or do not fit into your little worldview.

[gore3000]

Seems I recall that Darwin was concerned what the fossil record would actually show when it was all said and done.

This is one of the problems about arguing about bones, the evolutionists always keep claiming that 'the next one will really show evolution to be true'. However, it seems to me that with 150 years of searching and 100 times more bones now than in Darwin's time, evolutionists should at least have the honesty to say that the bones give very dubious evidence of evolution.

A lot of questions could be laid to rest if we were able to pull DNA information beyond the 60-100,000 year old barrier.

There certainly wood be, however it will have to be due to great luck that we would find much of it. Bodies decay quite fast. However, with easier, faster and cheaper ways to read the genomes of both humans and other species, we may be able sooner than many think answer some very important questions about evolution. Most DNA comparisons up to now have been done based only on partial looks at different genomes and without knowing what much of the DNA we were looking at did. We should be able to start making some intelligent comparisons in the next few years.

[Aric2000]

Indeed we will make progress, when that happens, which strawman are you going to pull out to try and disprove evolution then?

[gore3000]

What realm do emotions belong to?

The immaterial realm obviously. Is there a love (not sex) gland? A caring gland? An affectionate gland? A friendship gland? Clearly these feelings have nothing to do with anything material.

[gore3000]

Can god himself/herself/itself be studied DIRECTLY?

That something cannot be studied directly does not mean it cannot be studied. Evolutionists claim their theory is science and yet can one study it directly? Can one study natural selection directly? Clearly one cannot. Therefore the claims of Intelligent Design are at least as 'studyable' as those of evolution. Let's remember that one of the arguments Darwin had to refute was that of intelligent design in order to have his theory made acceptable. If ID was not 'studiable' and not scientific, then what need did he have to refute it? Indeed, how could he even claim to refute it?

Can one see design in things made by man? One certainly can. Can such design be studied? Of course it can, it is done all the time and that is how design improvements come about. So why cannot such design be equally studied in nature? I see no reason why it cannot be and indeed such is being done today. We hear everyday of scientists examining how living things deal with certain questions in order to make medicines for example. So yes design can indeed be studied whether it be in things made by man or otherwise.

[gore3000]

Indeed we will make progress, when that happens, which strawman are you going to pull out to try and disprove evolution then?

I am pretty certain that scientific progress will CONTINUE to disprove evolution.

[gore3000]

Public schools are secular, they are not allowed to favor one religion over another. You wish your children to learn about Pagans ideas of creation, how about Hindu, or perhaps druidic notions?

Who's talking about religion in schools? Certainly not I. What we are talking about is whether a certain scientific theory which has little or no proof behind it should be taught as fact. It certainly should not be. Nothing that is untrue should be taught in schools and evolution is just plain not true.

BTW - your 'canned' answer was totally non-responsive to my post which dealt with the fact that the theory of evolution, abiogenesis and a random universe are inextricably connected to each other and fall together if the existence of God is admitted in any of their spheres.

[f.Christian]

What an evo shill . . . you must have gills // scales - - - webbed hands // feet . . .

serum not working . . . hairy palms // slouching over - - -

feel safe // home swinging through the jungle // feet off of the ground . . .

with your kind // roots // ancestors ? ? ?

Main Entry: 1shill
Pronunciation: 'shil
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: 2shill
Date: circa 1914
1 : to act as a shill
2 : to act as a spokesperson or promoter the eminent Shakespearean producer, director, actor and star... is now shilling for a brokerage house -- Andy Rooney
>

[Junior]

He's back...

I knew the civility and sense of meaningful dialogue was too good to last.

[Junior]

Seems kind of illogical to me to say such a thing. Now who would know the Truth better than He who created everything? Is the Truth (with a capital "T") not objective??????

We were discussing human value and worth, not right and wrong, not truth or lies. We defined our terms and argued from those positions. We were not all over the map with extraneous terminology or side trips down dead-end discussions.

Ah, the good ol' days ...

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote "A lot of questions could be laid to rest if we were able to pull DNA information beyond the 60-100,000 year old barrier.

There certainly wood be, however it will have to be due to great luck that we would find much of it. Bodies decay quite fast. However, with easier, faster and cheaper ways to read the genomes of both humans and other species, we may be able sooner than many think answer some very important questions about evolution"


You actually aren't allowed to discuss DNA that is over 6000 years old. I mean you believe the world is only 6000 years old so that DNA couldn't possibly exist in your world. Now when you accept a bit of science and give us the correct age of the Earth feel free to discuss.


How old is the Earth?

[Sentis]

gore3000 spouted "godless axis know that they must fight together against religion because they know that if God is admitted in any of these fields then all the theories in the axis of evil fall apart. "

Since I am one of those members of your so called "godless axis" Let me be the first to say God might exist but his existence is irrelevant in this discussion. Evolution occurred we don't know every little detail but it happened, the world is older than 6000 years old but I can't tell you the exact date, and there was a big bang but I can't tell you if it was the first cause of the universe. I cannot tell you there is a god he doesn't provide any evidence for his existence.


May I ask a second question? If the Earth is 6000 (and by logic the universe began at the same time as the earth if we take Genesis literally) how come that light from stars more than 6000 light years away have already reached the earth? Hmmm logically if the universe was 6000 years old than that light couldn't get here.




How old is the Universe?

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote "And even on that narrowest of points, the evolutionists cannot gain a solid ground with the Cambrian animals and the numerous gaps in the fossil record - exactly where they are most important - speaking loudly against their theory"

Hmmm again I say you can't discuss the cambrian if you believe the earth is 6000 years old. Also if your belief is the world is 6000 years old you can't discuss the fossil record. You really need to try and prove the fossil record doesn't exist. How do people who speak out of the sides of their mouths even exist believing that the Earth is 6000 years old then trying to debate by using facts he doesn't even believe to support his lame arguments.


Grow up get a clue and call somebody.


How old is the Earth? Its the simple questions that crevos fear the most.

[B. Rabbit]

Who's talking about religion in schools? Certainly not I. What we are talking about is whether a certain scientific theory which has little or no proof behind it should be taught as fact. It certainly should not be. Nothing that is untrue should be taught in schools and evolution is just plain not true.

To be honest, I really don't care if they teach evolution in schools yet until more facts are discovered. I don't think it advances critical thinking and hardly affects a student aged 5 - 18. But I am afraid that the next step will be taking away natural history. Do we stop telling children about the dinosaurs and how long ago they lived because the Young Earth believers want that taken away as well... When does it end? Do we teach meteorology class and imply that doors in the sky open up and dump water out?

[PatrickHenry]

4K?

Very belated congrats. A thread this size may be creationism's most tangible achievement.

[SunnyUsa]

"4K"?

What did you win?

Did you hear bells and applause from all the lofty cerebral posters here? :)

[gore3000]

Hmmm again I say you can't discuss the cambrian if you believe the earth is 6000 years old.

Don't put words in my mouth Vade which I have never said. Clearly my statement is true and you cannot refute it.

BTW - using more than one account will get both accounts closed.

[gore3000]

Is it sciences fault that all the facts fit into the theory so well,

What facts? What theory? The evolutionists have been running away from both questions throughout this whole 4000+ post thread.