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."
Hello Physicist! As an example: Gravity? (At least in the traditional senses of “gravity” and “material.” I know there’s been some recent speculation about gravitons, which seems to want to find a way to attribute materiality to this force of nature…but I don’t know how that hypothesis is faring at the moment, experimentally speaking.)
Then explain to me what part of Penrose's beliefs regarding consciousness (which in his words are summarized as ‘Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness, but this physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally.’) are not attributable to the action of material…
Please may I have a rain check on that, P? I haven’t read Penrose yet, though I’ve got two of his books ordered and on the way. Also the Christopher Wills title you suggested. It was out of print, but I was able to find a copy on the aftermarket.
I’d welcome a discussion after I’ve had some time to digest Penrose -- so to speak. I really am not a practicing cannibal…. :^) But I really do have to try to "get up to speed" first. I hope this will be O.K. with you.
I might be struck down by physicist for this, but I'm pretty sure the "forces" are as material as anything. Recall that even "solid" matter can be expressed as a wave function, even you or I.
I find this pretty spooky, but what were we thinking about when we thought matter was solid?
Your challenge began: First give me an example of something that is physical, but not material. I did not answer because the language is one of the philosophy and not physics.
I shall borrow from your Bell's Inequalities dialogue and present the philosophical difference this way:
Both agree they don't know what is behind that door.
Doctor Materialist says "Whatever is behind that door is based on all the physical laws that are in the room of all scientific knowledge.”
Doctor Physicalist says "Perhaps it is, but we have no way of knowing, we must first find a way to open the door.”
There is yet another door marked "Consciousness."
Again, they both agree they don't know what is behind that door.
But Doctor Materialist says “I am sure that whatever is behind that door works the same as things do here in the room of all scientific knowledge.”
Doctor Physicalist says, “Perhaps it does, but we have no way of knowing, we must first find a way to open the door. For this one, we’ll need a new of kind of science.”
Certainly life according to certain Islamists is a big zero. When deciding whether killing masses of people was moral, they reasoned that any Muslims killed would go to heaven anyway. Kinda makes you wonder why God bothered with smelly old life.
As for God punishing people for incorrect beliefs, that congers up an image of a teacher punishing a retarded kid.If faith gives you peace and enhances your life, I'm all for it, but spare me the death threats.
How curious. I consider each of the ones you listed to be examples of invention.
I'm very sure we cannot not resolve the debate, considering it was an ongoing debate between Einstein v Gödel and continues with Hawking v Penrose. LOL!
As a materialist who acknowledges not knowing all the ramifications of the term, I would say, in your hypothetical situation, "This room isn't big enough. Let's expand it."
LOL! If you haven't presumed what the bigger room would look like, you have just disqualified yourself as a materialist. BTW, I thought you had previously said that you aren't a materialist.
I guess the way things appear will be sufficiently convincing and authoritative -- until we look more closely and deeply into the matter. As they say, appearances can be deceiving. Still it is pretty spooky to think of ourselves as "wave functions!" (Of course, I do think we're a tad more than merely that.)
Now if the literal six 24 hours interpretation is true then all critters were created during a week, so after this week they existed all at the same time in the same place. I'm sure this place must have been really crowded, especially after all these animals started to procreate. However, this scenario is not consistent with the fossil record which is cronologically ordered. In the former scenario fossils of trilobites, dinosaurs and mammals should not be found only in certain strata but everywhere and in no particular order but this is most certainly not the case.
The interpretation that these "days" lasted much longer than 24 hours also has its problems because the order in which different species were created doesn't coincide with the fossil record. So animals that live in the water and those that can fly were created at the same time (or in the same period). So fish (and also whales which are mammals) and birds (as well as bats that are also mammals) were created before reptiles and those mammals that creep on the earth. You may try to twist this in any way you want but it still isn't consistent with the fossil record.
An other problem is the order in which the plants and the sun are created. In a 24 hours day scenario this may not have been a problem since plants can survive for a day without sunlight but if this "day" can last several years or even millions of years this is a rather preposterous claim.
I think that prior to 1928 a reasonable person might think that matter was a fairly limited concept, and that the study of matter could come to a conclusive end.
Now I think the known properties of matter are so intriguing that I see no reason to assume matter is limited in any way, though our knowledge of it is.
I am wrestling with your distinction between materialism and physicalism. At the moment I cannot clearly see the difference -- at least any difference that affects my way of thinking.
I will propose a little thought experiment for you. Imagine two parallel earths, both at the technological level of our 1898. The quantum is yet undiscovered. Is it possible for each earth to resolve the problems faced by physics in different ways -- one perhaps going our way, another leaping directly into string theory? In other words, is there anything behind the formalisms of our theories other than giving the right answers?
And me... what about me? I'm "moral," I don't cheat on my wife, I'm not divorced (like so many christians), I give to charity, I help old ladies across the street, I'm not violent, etc, etc.
It's always been my contention (when arguing this point, anyway) that I, being an atheist since I was smart enough to figure things out, am actually of higher moral fiber than christians. I do good works, I'm a good guy, and to think I do all of this with no fear of eternal damnation hanging over me head! Therefore, I'm intrinsically moral, whereas the fearful christian is only moral because of the imagined repercussions (or so it would seem).
The problem with this reasoning is that it uses man as its starting point rather than God.
In the case of the Buddhist monk you argue that he can't be condemned because (a) he wouldn't hurt a fly, and (b) he has never heard of Jesus Christ (highly unlikely for a monk by the way).
In your own case you argue that you are basically moral and perhaps a good beal better behaved than many Christians besides, and so you believe condemnation likewise shouldn't apply to you.
Finally, you assert that Christians are only moral because they fear damnation. Ordinary mortals such as yourself are actually finer people, since you guys behave yourselves quite nicely without the threat of eternal punishment.
Let's see if we can clear all this up, shall we?
First, reality is not about you. It's about Him.
Second, your opinions of your own goodness and the relative goodness of others aren't worth squat.
The "best" among the human race are still seriously and fatally flawed creatures. There is no one who is truly good. There is no one who does not harbor evil to some degree in their heart. There is none of us who hasn't ever done something to be ashamed of. There is no one who has never lied. There is no one who is not tenaciously committed to his or her own self-interest most of the time. This is what we are - selfish creatures hell-bent on serving our own interests. And that is what is so damnable about all of us.
God says this is man's problem: he is a wilfull, stubborn creature, bent on serving himself, and is therefore alienated from God. It is this sinful condition which prevents man from enjoying fellowship with God here and now while he lives on the earth, and furthermore which is a barrier that precludes him from being able to spend eternity with God in heaven. We are a stench in His nostrils and odious in His sight. As we are, if we were even able to attempt to draw near to Him in our own strength, we would be utterly destroyed, both on account of the fact that The King dwells in unapproachable light, and that our immoral nature renders us unfit to be admitted into His presence. The naked truth of what we are deep down inside is repulsive and unacceptable to Him who Alone is truly Good.
That is why it is foolish to speak of the relative morality or goodness of one person over another. It is like two passengers on the Titanic arguing about who will sink and who will drown when the ship goes down, because one is fat and can float easier than the one who is thin. Ultimately they're both going to sink, regardless who can float better. Similarly, there is no human who has what it takes to approach a holy God on the strength of his own merits and secure the divine favor of God, gaining a place in heaven. God is accepting exactly no one on a performance basis.
Truth does not change because of lack of knowledge, either. If heaven is closed to sinners, then it is closed to all people, for all people are sinners. Awareness of this or lack of awareness of this does not matter in the least.
It is only because God sent His Son that any human has any hope at all of entering heaven. Our sins stand in the way, blocking us from God. Jesus Christ paid the penalty of our sin debt on the cross. However, that payment is credited to the accounts only of those people who believe that He is God, and place their trust in His atoning death.
Christians do not fear damnation, because that is no longer a possibility for them. Once they have accepted Christ as their savior, they are fully and completely pardoned, forgiven of every sin, and no longer subject to eternal damantion. Does every Christian then proceed to live a life which honors the God who saved him? Sadly, no. There are many who become short-sighted after their salvation and who choose to live pretty much the way their unsaved neighbors do. Those who do this are still saved and going to heaven, but are going to have precious little if anything to show for their lives, being largely lacking in service to Christ.
BTW – I am enjoying the discussion.
I might agree if I could accept the word merely. When you find your head wrapped around something completely incomprehensible, the word "mere" seems inappropriate.
Gee, I actually USE that one (the Pythagorean Theorum) all the time. When I stretch a string around three points in my yard while constructing a flowerbed, it describes a plane.
I suppose you could nitpick and say that gravity causes the string to arc a bit between points, but it's not enough to affect the results (and I pull that string really tight)... ;)
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.