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."
Not specifically or consciously. I'm not trying to undermine anyone's faith, but some folks do not seem to realize that there is no consesus on the facts of religion.
C'mon soldier, ya gotta to do better'n that. Us heathens call this False Dichotomy. A day or so ago you notioned that God might jus' determine morality any ol' way, but that since we all is just dumb ol' clay we ain't allowed to notice this.
Don't quite jive with the tune your jukebox is playin' now, do it?
Lying is not the only possibility. I'm pretty sure that many of the people who have witnessed John Ewdards speak to the dead are not lying. Nor the people who fed their children cool-aid in Jonestown. I'm not even sure Jim Jones was, technically speaking, lying. One does not have to be a lyer to be an unreliable witness. Every study of witnesses in criminal cases points out that what people see is not necessarily what shows up on videotape.
I am disturbed by people wo assert that all eternity is affected by whether we believe a certain set of witnesses.
Hmm... now here is an interesting philosophical puzzle:
Yupp, that's the time when science took off and advanced exponentially to what we know today. One of the main reason why science was so successful in the west is the fact that we learned to separate science from the supernatural, something that hasn't occurred in the rest of the world. Some days ago someone posted an article about science in the Muslim world and why it didn't make the same progress as in the West but stagnated and even declined from a once higher state.
The point is they didn't make that separation but allowed the supernatural to creep in their explanations (i.e. so Allah wills).
Here is a quote from Arthur N. Strahler where he explains better than I could why science and the supernatural don't mix:
Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that's simply what the word "supernatural" means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up from "nowhere." Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore "claims" of the existence of supernatural forces and causes. This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of processing information will collapse. To put it another way, if science must include a supernatural realm, it will be forced into a game where there are no rules. Without rules, no scientific observation, explanation, or prediction can enjoy a high probability of being a correct picture of the real world.There are those who call themselves Christians who, for some irreconcilable reasons, choose to believe in evolution, and I love to talk to those types because evolution is not compatible with Christianity, and it can be demonstrated easily enough.
Since I'm not a Christian I can't comment on this but I know many Christians who don't have a problem with the Theory of Evolution (including the pope).
Science deals with the ordered universe as God made it. God made it ordered so we could live and function in it.
Science deals with the universe as we observe it, whether a god made it or not. And just because we think it is ordered doesn't mean that it had to be created by a god. You don't know what a universe might look like which had not been created by a god and as long as you can't provide at least one of these uncreated universes to compare it with our universe the claim that ours was created by a supernatural being is unsupported and neither the order we observe is an argument for it being created by a god nor the chaos we also observe is an argument against a creator.
Also, what makes you think that conclusions you draw from observations within our universe can be applied to a universe as a whole?
The two (God and physical laws) are not mutually exclusive as naturalists would have everyone believe.
Maybe there are some naturalists who want to make you believe this but there are also a lot of naturalists (some even on this board) who don't say that a god is incompatible with physical laws.
Newton was a theist who believed in the supernatural but was able to come up with calculus and other important discoveries. Conversely, it would logically follow that an atheist would pressuppose chaos, not order as Newton did.
Ad what makes you believe this? Why is it logical that an atheist presupposes chaos? I for one don't.
An atheist can also claim that the universe shows order because there are no gods who meddle with it.
Just because someone believes in the supernatural does not require that person to come up with a supernatural explanation - such people like myself recognize that God made the ordered universe such as it is. How is this in any way incompatible with true scientific discovery?
And that's what I said. You can be a Christian (or otherwise religious person) and still use methodological naturalism when doing science.
It is a non-rational leap to presuppose that natural laws (speed of gravity, of light, Hubble constant, laws of motion, and on and on) just sprang into being by chance+time+matter+energy, isn't it?
And why is it non-rational? What observation (within our universe, or can you see beyond our universe?) has led you to the insight that our universe shows these properties because it has been created by a god? Why can't it show the same properties without being created? What mechanism prevents an uncreated universe to be the same as a created one?
I will answer part of your post today, part tomorrow. You just defined empiricism. Can you prove empirically that only that which is observable is real? Nope. Therefore, your assertion falls on its own head. You are presupposing empiricism in your argument. That being said, you are right, supernatural cannot be observed. Howerver, if God created the ordered universe, then the supernatural is behind the natural and holds it together.
Of course it can also be that those critters we believe to have lived more than 10000 years ago (like trilobites or dinosaurs), didn't really exist but their fossils were created together with the earth as reported in Genesis.
Now this scenario lets your god appear like a trickster who wants to deceive us, so this version is nothing more than a variation of Last Thursdayism - in this case it would be Thursday from 10000 years ago-ism.
Seeing is believing that miracles do happen
“When its empirical resources are exhausted, science itself closes the door to naturalistic explanation. -William A. Dembski
…This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of processing information will collapse. To put it another way, if science must include a supernatural realm, it will be forced into a game where there are no rules. Without rules, no scientific observation, explanation, or prediction can enjoy a high probability of being a correct picture of the real world.
“The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter. If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, that thinking is still only a result of matter's properties. Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,? ...Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality. C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not? If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion. “
“Epistemology is the study of the basis and validity of knowledge, ----and it is because of its inability to know anything for sure, that the worldview of naturalism is self-contradictory, and fails the first truth test. Naturalism logically creates an epistemological vacuum, in which man can never know anything for sure. Informed and consistent naturalism results in epistemological nihilism. “
“The philosophical naturalist (who is consistent) cannot know anything for sure, and yet the first proposition of naturalism makes statements as if they know that "matter is all there is" and that "no supernatural God exists". So, even though the philosophical naturalist does not know that his thinking bears any relationship to reality, still he often audaciously declares that he knows so much that he can categorically rule out the existence of something spiritual. The inconsistency and illogic in such assertions are obvious. “When a man is done philosophizing about the nature of his worldview, can he live it out, and does he actually practice it in his daily life? ...If not, then the actions of his life reveal his true inner conviction of the untruth of that worldview ...it is not livable, therefore, that worldview fails the third truth-test.
Hmm, can you prove that that which is not observable is real? (by observable I mean measurable in any way)
Howerver, if God created the ordered universe, then the supernatural is behind the natural and holds it together.
As the Spartans said to the Persians - IF.
Hahaha. Not hardly. All it proves is that some Christian ideas may predate Christianity. It says nothing about the source of moral absolutes.
As I have stated repeatedly, if moral absolutes do not come from God, then they MUST COME FROM MAN. If they come from man, they are relative to man. If they are relative to man, then they are mere preferences and have no universal or objective existence. Those are your only two choices - either morals are relative or they are from God. You must either choose one of these two or give me a third option. Choose. I'll wait for your answer.
4239 exmarine
C'mon soldier, ya gotta to do better'n that. Us heathens call this False Dichotomy. -Condorman-
---------------------------
Its more than a false dichotomy.
- Xman claims that my point "says nothing about the source of moral absolutes", --- which is an outright fabrication.
My point at #4,175 was that:
- "Our sense of morality is self-evident, - & that all mankind has possessed it, - is obvious from the presence of the 'golden rule' in all societies, regardless of religion.
We all learn this golden rule at our mothers breast, in the form of "don't bite the tit that feeds you".
To which our 'fab' exmarine replied:
The golden rule does not exist in all societies. It is strictly Christian.
A flip remark he has been trying to justify ever since, seeing that it is obvious that there are versions of the golden rule from virtually every society that has had a recorded philosophy. -- I once saw a list here on FR of close to a hundred such examples.
-- Our boy has a very limited argumenitive style. He ignores points that he has trouble refuting, and outright denies those he cannot with 'arguments from authority', either with himself or God as the authority.
It's tough to argue with God.
When did this happen? Today or 300 years ago?
“The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter.
And if this is true it is bad why?
If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, that thinking is still only a result of matter's properties.
And this is bad why? And how can you tell the difference?
Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,?
Why should chemicals react with each other?
In this case not the chemicals do the distinguishing but the whole system. A system that has a less accurate model of the environment it is part of than one that has a more accurate model is often at a disadvantage compared to the latter. So those who have a better model of reality are those that are more likely to continue their existence.
Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality.
Oh but it seems to work quite well in this reality. And without some compelling evidence why should we believe that this is not the ultimate reality?
C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not?
And if his mental processes are not only determined by the motions of atoms and electrons what reason has he to believe that his beliefs are true in this case?
If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion. “
If our universe is nothing but a cellular automaton running on a multidimensional computer that is operated by multidimensional beings then this cellular automaton in this computer is our reality.
I think Physicist made a similar point when he tried to explain the appearance of free will to an other Freeper. I could be wrong though but I think I remember something like that.
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.