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."
In reality, moral relativism does not exist because no human being can really live life as if morals do not exist, (except for sociopaths and psychopaths).-YOU
I see where I screwed up. My fault. The last statement from me seems to defend moral relativism. What I was trying to say is that you don't need religion to explain the impossibility of moral relativism. Moral relativism is abhorent to any true free man, religious or not.
IMHO, your question cannot be explored without the definition of the terms and the scope of the inquiry.
For instance, some creationists of the Judeo-Christian stripe hold to the young earth view, i.e. the literal interpretation of Genesis from man's point of view. That would put the age of the earth at about 6000 years. But among this group are those who see an old universe preceding a young earth and others who see both as young.
Other Judeo-Christians look at Genesis as a metaphor and thus do not have an issue with the age of the universe or earth. Some who are not Judeo-Christians believe that God initiated it all and then withdrew and thus do not have an issue with the age of the universe. Both of these may be loathe to be considered under the umbrella of intelligent design, their belief in a Designer notwithstanding.
I suspect there are creationists who are not Judeo-Christian and have some other theory (ravens, turtles or whatever.) They may or may not have an issue with the age of the universe.
The directed panspermia crowd would likely agree on the dating of the universe and earth but would place the origin of life much earlier in a galaxy far, far away.
And then there's my view, that due to the inflationary model and relativity - and because God is not "in" time, the only observer of creation and the author of Genesis - that both statements are true. The universe is approximately 6000 years old (the Adamic age plus creation week from God's point of view as observer) - and is also approximately 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates as observer.
So, shall we find agreement on the terms and scope and pursue the inquiry - or shall we agree to disagree and table it?
My posts are so full of mistakes, it's too discommoding to correct them.
The question of God is irrelevant to evolution, unless you can formulate some test for the presence of God, or propose an observation unique to the presence of God.
Evolution proposes that three simple concepts-- heredity, variation and reproductive success-- may have given rise to the wide variety of life on this planet. The details of each mechanism can be studied, quantified, described, and investigated. There are no anomalies that threaten these three basic precepts, and no evidence for any other mechanisms.
Nothing in there precludes the idea, as you insist, that God set these mechanisms in motion. But so far we have no evidence of god(s) one way or another. If you wish to assign a Divine interpretation, feel free. Recognize however that this is only and exactly your own interpretation, and absent concrete evidence, you may not use public funds to promote this interpretation.
This is not an adequate explanation. Our nation's founders recognized that the truths are self-evident because we have been endowed with them by our Creator. The wonderful objective right for personal FREEDOM cannot just hang in mid-air and be an end unto itself. This is still non-rational. Logically speaking, without an infinite reference point (God), there is no basis for believing absolute moral truths exist on their own - out of nothing and residing nowhere in particular.
What would stop someone like Stalin from rejecting your exaltation of freedom and throwing you in a gulag? Practiically speaking, if freedom does not originate from God, it carries no moral force and has no anchor.
That a plain and simple lie. All that anyone can expect fron new evidence is that it will be consistent with theory. Your continuing assertion that "proof" is expected is a lie. And if you believe in god, it is a sin against God (remember the ten commandments).
You can make rules for yourself in your own private universe inside your head, but you cannot tell other people what they are thinking and believing.
This thread went pretty smoothly in your absense -- ask anyone if you don't believe me. The reason it went smoothly is that the remaining participants didn't lie about each other's positions.
Reread post 3986. As I said, that came from Shadows of the Mind, page 12 (and subsequent).
Which evolutionist said that, exactly? We have always been very clear: The next bone/imprint/shell/exoskeleton/stony critter always has the potental disprove evolution, but it cannot ever prove the theory of evolution. The best it can do add another bit of support to the theory.
Of course there is something else going on. Selection can only operate on change, and change is contrained by what you refer to as natural law. We obviously don't know all the laws of nature, so saying something is impossible or improbable is a risky thing. Even more interesting, a lot of folks make assertions about things being improbable without the slightest evidence. they completely ignore the fact that a jump from one step to the next is easier than a jump from the bottom of a staircase to the top.
This is important. What you are saying then, is that if science says the earth is 4.2 billion years old (or so) it might be wrong, but at least it doesn't contradict the Bible.
I would say that the randomness lies in the specific outcome of the collapse, rather than in the observation that causes the collapse, but otherwise that's all correct.
Once measured, the nonlocality rules (part of the totality of physical law) specify what the state of its photon twin is, wherever that twin might be in the universe.
I can't argue with any of that
That "instruction set" -- physical laws -- is analogous to the Aristotelian First Cause.
I'm not as up on Aristotle as I should be, but my suspicion is that his understanding of time and causality is not fully modern. According to quantum mechanics, there are uncaused events, and according to relativity, time itself can behave counterintuitively when sharply curved.
Is there a school of "undirected" panspermia which believes life could have arisen long ago and far away and the elementary particles dispersed by supernova explosions?
And why isn't there a panova crowd?
I didn't miss your reference. Shadows of the Mind is on the way and I will be reading that as well. Based upon 416 pages of Emperor and counting, however, whatever Penrose may otherwise be, he is not a Materialist and, I repeat, he does not state or suggest that consciousness is material.
May I recommend The Wisdom of the Genes by Christopher Wills? His argument is that evolution is proceeding at a faster rate than ever before, because the ability to evolve has itself evolved over time. In the book, he details the existence of "genetic toolkits" that are capable of producing complex, coordinated modifications of entire sets of genes in one throw. (One specific instance he explores is a toolkit that manages the complicated set of genes that determine the pattern of a butterfly's wings.)
I'll stick with science, and read scripture as metaphor where it seems to be in conflict. That's Galileo's method, and it's also the method suggested by the Pope. It works for them and it works for me.
Is there a school of "undirected" panspermia which believes life could have arisen long ago and far away and the elementary particles dispersed by supernova explosions? And why isn't there a panova crowd?
Astrobiology addresses the undirected question. In addition to that mission statement, you might find interesting their reaction to the directed panspermia idea.
What would be the definition of panova?
It's plenty okay with me to let the issue go. Hugs!!!
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.