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."

[Condorman]

exmarine, Post 4154
The golden rule does not exist in all societies. It is strictly Christian.

js1138, post 4163:
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence."
Confucianism. Mencius VII.A.4

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "
Jainism. Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

exmarine, post 4166:
Okay, I will take your word for it that these pre-date Christ. Even so, that in no way discredits Christianity. To say it does is a logical fallacy. Just because some ideas that agree with Christian teachings were around before Christ in no way proves that Christianity is wrong. This would be a false conclusion.

No one attempted to discredit Christianity. These were posted in support of the idea that the Golden Rule is not strictly Christian. Are you having problems remembering your positions from post to post?

[exmarine]

I'll cede some points. In this case, the point made is a quibble, so I couldn't care less.

[exmarine]

I simply do not see a secular based curriculum (whatever that means). I see a cirriculum undergirded by naturalistic assumptions as I have well demonstrated. It can't be denied. It's a well-known fact. You can take cap-lock off now. All the caps in the world will not that that. Tell me, under secularism, how would you teach the origins of the universe?

[js1138]

I accept that you can find authority for your view in the Bible. But if I believed your interpretation of every word in the Bible, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

With all the charlatans who have preached in my lifetime, I am not going to listen to someone who says I have to believe the witness of certain people or spend eternity in hell. There are too many competing religions making the same demand for contradictory versions of history. You may find this kind of theological bullying to be comforting, but I don't. If it comes to that, count me among the weeds.

Don't you find it even a bit ironic that with all the horrible forms of pain that people can inflict on each other, the only unforgivable sin is our own private thoughts? Sorry, but I don't believe that is true, and I am unlikely to take anyone's word that God said it.

[exmarine]

So in your opinion what is not religion based? Is there a version of the origins of the universe that is neither atheistic nor theistic from your point of view?

Name a version of the origins that is not either theistic or atheistic in its implication. Good luck.

[js1138]

To me, this is a strong indication that our entire world is ruled completely by mathematical equations and predictions - and not only that, but that humans have the capability to sort it all out; they already have come a long way. It is quite conceivable to suspect that humans will figure out the ultimate equations that are at the basis of everything.

I sincerely and respectfully doubt this. this has been one of the dominant opinions throughout the history of science, but my "harmonizing" on this history leads me to believe that equations are human constructs that give good, approximate results pending further investigation. Until I see the final draft of the Theory of Everything, I think it's turtles all the way down. So to speak.

[Junior]

A "well on our way to 5000 posts" placemarker.

[js1138]

Name a version of the origins that is not either theistic or atheistic in its implication.

You seem unable to grasp the possibility that there can be varities of theism that do not require one to believe in the absolute inerrancy of a particular book. Belief in God is not synonomous with belief in the Bible.

I, for one will grant you full authority to assert that evolution contradicts the literal word of the Bible. You can have that claim for what it's worth.

You cannot, except in your own mind, claim that anyone who doubts the literal inerrancy of the bible is therefore an atheist.

[js1138]

A "well on our way to 5000 posts" placemarker.

Doing my best to please.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for sharing your views!

For lurkers following our discussion, I do want to mention that the quote in your post 4206 comes from Gerardus 't Hooft and not me - although I do certainly agree with him. From the link:

Hooft and his colleague Professor Martinus J.G. Veltman received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1999, for their work on the quantum structure of electroweak interactions.

You and I must again agree to disagree. But that's okay with me; I'm glad you care and have an opinion.

[Condorman]

In this case, the point made is a quibble, so I couldn't care less.

More accurately stated, the point made is in direct opposition to your contention that absolute morality depends on the Christian God.

[music_code]

With all the charlatans who have preached in my lifetime, I am not going to listen to someone who says I have to believe the witness of certain people or spend eternity in hell.

There is only One Person who has presented His Word for you to believe. Based on His credentials (resurrecting Himself from the dead) I would say you should give serious consideration to what He says.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is bunk // rubbish - - - NO design // intelligence . . .

Creation // ID is SCIENCE ! ! !

[js1138]

I would say you should give serious consideration to what He says.

Again, that requires belief in witnesses. And disbelief in all the witnesses for all the other religions in the world. As for the story of Jesus, I believe the music, but not the words. I'm quite willing to be led by his example because I feel in my heart that that's the right thing, but I anticipate no reward.

[f.Christian]

Ye shall remove their rights and legislate pc state morality // 'science'--- Fundevoticus 1:23

[Aric2000]

Did you witness this resurrection? were you there?

Then how come you believe it?

If you were not there, the only proof you have is someone telling you or reading it in a book.

What if they were lying?

This is the basis of the argument that you creationists throw at ecolution. We have no proof, we cannot see it.

We have plenty of facts, fossils, DNA, etc etc, but we have no REAL proof that it happened that way because we were not there.

It makes evolution just as likely as your faith in the fact that someone said, that someone said, that he rose from the dead. As a matter of fact, it makes it all that much more likely. Because we do not have it third hand, we have it directly from fossil evidence.

Hmm, creationism, no proof, bible says it to be so, or science, fossils, theory fits known facts, hmm, hard to say. NOT. I know where my bets lie.

[BMCDA]

If you think that not needing a god as part of an explanationis atheistic then everything in science is atheistic.

Your problem seems to be the methodological naturalism used by scientists (even by those who believe in a god). Science deals only with the natural world, the supernatural (if something liek this exists) is beyond its scope. So if you drag the supernatural into science you're no longer doing science.

[music_code]

Again, that requires belief in witnesses. And disbelief in all the witnesses for all the other religions in the world. As for the story of Jesus, I believe the music, but not the words. I'm quite willing to be led by his example because I feel in my heart that that's the right thing, but I anticipate no reward.

1. The tomb was empty.

2. Disciples changed their behavior radically from cowards hiding out in fear for their lives to roaring lions of faith, all of whom died horrible deaths for Christ, never having renounced belief in His resurrection.

3. Change in day of worship for Jews from Saturday to Sunday traceable back to 30 A.D.

4. Millions of Christians over the millenia testify to the power of the risen Christ who changed their lives.

These are just some of the high points with which God commands you to rethink your position.

[Aric2000]

I'll add one, this is a MAJOR tenet in most Pagan religions as well. Some of course dating FAR before Christianity, or Judaism etc.

"Do what you will, as long as it hurts no one."

Lots of responsibility in that one!! LOTS of PERSONAL responsibility.

[Tribune7]

your contention that absolute morality depends on the Christian God.

Absolute morality depends on God. That Jesus is God is a belief I share with many others, but this morality certainly existed long before the birth of Christ -- something the Bible specifically declares.

What Christ does throught his death is redeem us before God.