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."

[BMCDA]

To the nurse of f.Christian: Please increase the dosage! Please!

[Condorman]

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.

I think it's more than just that. See my post 4201. He asserts his position, has it soundly refuted, and claims victory over a point not even present in his original statement.

[f.Christian]

100 % liberals say . . . relative - - - existentialism // evolution ! ! !


Main Entry: ex·is·ten·tial·ism
Pronunciation: -'ten(t)-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1941
: a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad

[Sentis]

Hey dumb#ss Im not Vade. Actually I alreasdy refuted every claim you ever posted. In fact I did it about eight times already. In fact anyone who cares to go back can read it you however won't even answer one simple question.


How old do you think the Earth is?

Don't start spouting out at the mouth if you won't even answer a simple question.


Fear the simplicity.... How old is the Earth?

[Sentis]

gore3000 wrote"Clearly my statement is true and you cannot refute it."

Nope I not Vade, although I bet he has also, have refuted any and every silly post you have made. After the eighth time I quit refuting because you cut and paste the same argument over and over and when you are proved wrong you claim victory.


I remember two other people who used the same tactic I think their names were Adolf Hitler and Stalin. This idea was the one part of the communist manifesto that Adolf really took to heart.

[f.Christian]

Bunch of blathering liberals . . . intellectual // false science fascists - - - totalitarians ! ! !

[tpaine]

Either we are going to have a rule of law -- i.e., follow what the Constitution says -- or we are going to have a rule of men. The federal Constitution says nothing about having Bible classes -- or Gaia worship -- in the public schools. The public schools are supposed to be under local governance; therefore state constitutions would apply to these questions. -BB-

Betty, at some point you are going to have to face up to the fact that our 'federal' constitution has a supremacy clause that says that states are bound to follow the basic principles/laws of the United States Constitution.
One of these basic principles, as you admit, -- is keeping government out of religion, and vice/versa.
Thus, fed/state/local public funded schools cannot favor any of 'the establishments of religion'.

Such a simple concept, - why is it so difficult for some to understand?

[balrog666]

It's tough to argue with God.

The problem is all those people who think they speak for God.

[f.Christian]

You have no problem with the govt establishing full blown Atheistic liberalism // evolution do you ? ? ?

I understand - - - perfectly ! ! !

[balrog666]

Can't you even make sense in a tag line?

[Heartlander]

When did this happen? Today or 300 years ago?

And if this is true it is bad why?

And this is bad why? And how can you tell the difference?

Why should chemicals react with each other?

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?

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?

OK…
I don’t think my ‘opinion’ will change your ‘mind’ so please answer these questions yourself and for your own sake (if you are truly interested).

[f.Christian]

Is sense // reality . . . relevant // welcome to an evolutionist // liberal - - - NO // NEVER ! ! !


Main Entry: rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: 're-l&-v&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin relevant-, relevans, from Latin, present participle of relevare to raise up -- more at RELIEVE
Date: 1560
1 a : having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand b : affording evidence tending to prove or disprove the matter at issue or under discussion < relevant testimony > c : having social relevance
2 : PROPORTIONAL, RELATIVE
- rel·e·vant·ly adverb
synonyms RELEVANT, GERMANE, MATERIAL, PERTINENT, APPOSITE, APPLICABLE, APROPOS mean relating to or bearing upon the matter in hand. RELEVANT implies a traceable, significant, logical connection < found material relevant to her case >. GERMANE may additionally imply a fitness for or appropriateness to the situation or occasion < a point not germane to the discussion >. MATERIAL implies so close a relationship that it cannot be dispensed with without serious alteration of the case < facts material to the investigation >. PERTINENT stresses a clear and decisive relevance < a pertinent observation >. APPOSITE suggests a felicitous relevance < add an apposite quotation to the definition >. APPLICABLE suggests the fitness of bringing a general rule or principle to bear upon a particular case < the rule is not applicable in this case >. APROPOS suggests being both relevant and opportune < the quip was apropos >.

[Condorman]

Apparently his local the hardware store ran out of dashes. But man oh man, did he get a deal on the 75-pound bag of slashes.

[tpaine]

"I think it's more than just that. See my post 4201. He asserts his position, has it soundly refuted, and claims victory over a point not even present in his original statement."

#4201:
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?
4201 -Condorman-


I'll cede some points. In this case, the point made is a quibble, so I couldn't care less.
4202 -exmarine-

Good grief! Our 'God fearing' exmarine just stated that the point on the origin of human rights is a "QUIBBLE".
-- As you infered, he'll say anything to save face.

[tpaine]

The problem is all those people who think they speak for God.
4268 -B666-

Forgive them, they know not what they do.
[Its a catch 22 type thing. - The more zealous they are, the less rationality evidenced]

[tpaine]

Please, do not feed the fletcher.

[f.Christian]

If you // anyone . . .

believes evolution . . . you // they - - - have NO // zero - - - sense // science // reality . . .

bilge // head . . . fluids // matter ! ! !

[viaveritasvita]

"Do you understand yet?"

It's quite possible because you have an infant (unless you're a middle-aged or old man who married a younger woman) that I understood your premise before you were born. I DISAGREE with your premises; our premises are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED in this regard.

Your theory has been HIJACKED; you are in MASSIVE SELF-DENIAL about your beliefs and the agenda of evo.

Your arrogance is ASTONISHINGLY boring.

[f.Christian]

How about...

Your arrogance // immaturity is . . .ASTONISHINGLY - - - boring // lazy.

---better ? ? ?

[SunnyUsa]

"Can't you even make sense in a tag line?"

LOL!!!