Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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 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.

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."

Thank you oh so very, very much for your post! Yeehaw! Hugs!!!

You are absolutely right that it has to do with metaphysics and that's why the term materialism carries such forebodingly negative baggage in the crevo debates around here!

The term materialism in taken to mean the belief that everything that actually exists is material, or physical.

Here's more on the quandary from Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind:

There are two prominent construals of `material'. First, according to many philosophers, something is material if and only if it is spatial, extended in space. One might thus propose that what it means to say that something is material is that it is extended in space. This construal of `material' is inspired by Descartes's influential characterization of material bodies, in Meditation II. Given this construal, materialism is just the view that everything that exists is extended in space, that nothing nonspatial exists. This portrayal of materialism is attractively simple, but may be unilluminating.

The problem is that the relevant notion of spatial extension may depend on the very notion of material in need of elucidation. If there is such dependence, conceptual circularity hampers the proposed characterization of materialism. The main worry here is that the notion of spatial extension is actually the notion of something's being extended in physical space, or the notion of something's being physically extended. It seems conceivable that something (perhaps a purely spiritual being) has temporal extension, in virtue of extending over time, even though that thing lacks extension in physical space. It does not seem self-contradictory, in other words, to hold that something is temporal (or, temporally extended) but is not a body. If this is so, the proposed characterization of materialism should be qualified to talk of physical space or physical extension. In that case, however, the threat of conceptual circularity is transparent. Even if there is no strict circularity here, the pertinent notion of spatial extension may be too closely related to the notion of material to offer genuine clarification. At a minimum, we need a precise explanation of spatial extension, if talk of such extension aims to elucidate talk of what is material. Perhaps a notion of spatial extension is crucial to an elucidation of materialism, but further explanation, without conceptual circularity, will then be needed. (Cf. Chomsky 1988.)

If there is indeed a coherently conceivable distinction between minds and material bodies, we must reject the view that materialism, understood as entailing mind-body identity, is conceptually, or analytically, true—that is, true just in virtue of the meanings of `mind' and `body'. Given such a coherently conceivable distinction, we can also challenge any version of materialism implying that psychological concepts (for example, the concepts of belief and sensory pain) are defined in terms of the ordinary physical causes of belief states and pain states. (Such materialism has been proposed by D. M. Armstrong 1977, and David Lewis 1966.) If `pain' is defined in terms of the ordinary bodily causes of pain, then it will not be coherently conceivable that there is pain without bodies. The concept of pain will then depend for its semantic significance on the concept of a bodily cause.

Materialists do not share a uniform view about the nature of psychological properties, such as the properties of being a belief, being a desire, and being a sensory experience. In particular, they do not all hold that every psychological property is equivalent or identical to a conjunction of physical properties. Only proponents of reductive materialism hold the latter view, and they are a small minority among contemporary materialists. Proponents of nonreductive materialism reject the latter view, and affirm that psychological properties can be exemplified even in an immaterial world. Such nonreductive materialists include functionalists about the mind, who hold that psychological properties differ from material properties in virtue of the special causal or functional roles of the former. Functionalists differ from behaviorists in acknowledging the psychological relevance of causal relations among not only stimuli and behavior but internal states as well. A third prominent version of materialism, eliminative materialism, recommends that we eliminate most, if not all, everyday psychological discourse, on the ground that it rests on seriously misguided assumptions about human psychology—assumptions that will disappear with the advance of science.

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? -4267-

Sure it does, tpaine. The Constitution as written or modified by amendment is the supreme law of the land. But what if this "supreme law" has been grossly mangled/misinterpreted by nine rather ideological sitting justices, back in 1962? What does that do to the supreme law?

Nothing. The principles remain. - Maybe 'mangled' in your opinion, but what actual right do you claim to have personally lost in '62?

It seems to mean that there was one "supreme law" prior to 1962, and a different "supreme law" thereafter. And the difference is not in the details, but is a transformation of the entire substance and meaning of the religion clause. In effect, the justices simply substituted their own "preference" rather than follow what the Framers clearly said.

Millions of your peers don't see it that way betty. -- Get the constitution amended, - or reinterpreted, - if you can.

It takes an amendment to change the supreme law in such a profound way. Where was the constitutional amendment? Or did the justices just effectively "amend" the Constitution in a way that does not pass muster with Article V?

Read their decision. They saw religious & individual freedom in their "misinterpretation". - You didn't? Good luck on getting it interpreted differently.
And even if you did 'win', civil disobedience would negate any restrictive law, -- much as prohibition was ignored or gun grabbing laws are being ignored presently.

In the end determined minorities of freedom loving 'we the people' are the ultimate judges of constitutionality. I hope that some day we can all agree on that.

The majority opinion does not rule on matters of inalienble individual rights to life, liberty, or property.

Archaeological discoveries have confirmed statements in the Bible again and again. The walls of Jericho, ancient civilizations, pottery from King David's time, etc.

Really? There seem to be many archaeologists who don't share these views. Also proving parts of the Bible doesn't prove the whole Bible just as some events and places described in the Iliad that really do exist, don't make it true either.

For the rest, this pretty much comes up again and again. I've seen similar claims made on an other forum where I sometimes dwell. Here is a reply to such a claim. If you look around you will find even more responses since every newbie seems to think these arguments are somehow new and completely irrefutable. This however is not the case.

Now, if you really want to talk about truly circular logic, then you should consider the geologists and the paleontologists. The geologist says the rock is 70 million years old because there is a dinosaur fossil in it which is known to be 70 million years old. The paleontologist says the same dinosaur fossil is 70 million years old because it was found in a rock known to be be 70 million years old. This goes on all the time.

On the same board, only in the evolution section, radchemist promised a 2,000$ reward to that person who can demonstrate the claim you mentioned above. If you think you can provide such an example I suggest you post it there and take the 2,000$. However, no creationist there could give an example and this offer has been up for quite some time. And here is the link.

Regards

Under the law of cause and effect

What, pray tell, is the law of cause and effect?

, you can only go back so far with that argument. At the earliest point, you run out of natural scenarios. What do you do then? At the earliest point, either God caused it, or....what?

At no point in time, however, do you run out of immaterial scenarios. For aught anyone will likely ever be able to prove, God's plan guides each sperm to it's pre-chosen egg.

Besides, you and I both know that the naturalists who came up with the BB theory presuppose the non-existence of God.

I don't know any such thing, and neither does the subject of this thread.

The Genesis account just doesn't wash for a naturalist, you see, one must come up with an alternative. Thus, the BB.

Another conspiracy theory of history. The big bang was a direct and obvious response to the galactic red shift observations of Hubble.

-- 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 always 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".
- All else logically follows.

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. -4256-

Your post is exeedingly facile.
Tell you what - why don't YOU come up with a source other than God for moral absolutes...and don't tell me they are simply self-evident - that is a non-answer.

I already did, - just above. Mans reason is the source of his morality, sparked by the logic of the 'golden rule'.

Reality cannot be self-evident.

Why not?
-- This idiocy of yours, whereby you make simpilistic pronoucements, as above, is cute, but silly. -- Please, try to explain the logic of this oddly framed opinion.

There are only 2 sources for morals (unless YOU can name another!) - man or God. Take your pick.

Nope, - there is only one, - man. Unless of course, you can show us where a God set down these sources. -- And please, the bible is unquestionably a work of man.

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.