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."
So I guess your 'science' would say that flint tools arose by chance? By natural processes? Your exclusion of design from science is totally false. There is far more certainty that the bacterial flagellum was designed than that a stone axe arose by chance.
This statement and the whole previous post are nothing but an indirect assault on every non-Christian.-me-
You are trying to turn something which is a discussion of facts into a personal thing. Clearly this is because you cannot discuss the facts. The fact is that you cannot give scientific proof for any of these. The fact is that others holding on to these theories cannot give such proof either. There is more scientific proof against all these materialistic/atheistic theories than there is for them. Nevertheless those who hold to them claim their views are due to their love of science and their following scientific truth not a personal predilection. Now it seems to me that if people holding to these views cannot justify them from a scientific viewpoint but must instead rely on some vague possibility for which there is no scientific evidence, then such people are clearly following some personal predilection not science. Now the way you can refute the above is by showing that the scientific evidence for your materialistic/atheistic view is greater than for the opposite, not by insults. Let's see if you can meet the challenge.-BLUE THUNDER AGAIN-
I am not currently arguing against you on the accuracy or validity of evolution. The pieces of evidence I've seen are enough to convince me that evolution indeed takes place. Do we know everything? No. Can I answer your questions that you repeatedly throw up on the thread in that shade of blue that makes me cringe? No. Address the following issues, please.
Because parts of a theory cannot be explained yet, does this immediately disprove a theory? A theory being a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that are made. Asking a theory to explain a certain aspect of the model, which the theory cannot explain as of yet, does not mean that the entire theory is debunked. When Newton's theory could not explain the the motion of Mercury exactly, but was close, was it thrown out? No. Einstein's model answered many of the questions about the errancy of the Newtonian model.
Evolution does not necessitate atheism. I can prove it right now. I am creating a religion (although it is not real, it makes me a theist regardless) which states that the universe was created and my God created the first life (abiogenesis not being a tenant of evolution). God then set forth a process called evolution which He knew with infinite wisdom would eventually create an intelligent enough being to worship Him. Say what you will about the lunacy of this religion, it is a religion nonetheless (plus I will claim that you are a B. Rabbiticism basher if you do). I just called my buddy and he said he will convert to my new religion, so I officially have a following. A similar process is done by real religions around the world and has been loosely declared by the Pope...
Nobody here is arguing this.
One really must really wonder how a computer can think like a human. How for example could a computer 'love' or have any other human emotion. Certainly our emotions affect our thinking even if one does not consider them to be thoughts themselves. Other problems are how can a computer have insight or conscience. This also seems impossible.
However, perhaps the toughest test for a computer thinking like a human being is laughter. Will a computer ever be able to laugh at a joke like a human can? There is much that is human involved in even a simple joke such as irony, a dissonance from reality, plays on words, etc. For example , the simple one liner "Take my wife, PLEASE!" would probably drive any computer nuts trying to figure out what the joke is.
I'm impressed with your search for knowledge.
I've got a lot of sponge in me, so perhaps I should turn myself in for study by the researchers revising the tree of life. LOL!
Serious though, I am trying very hard to understand. I do use a lot of analogies in my reasoning, though I try to keep an open mind. Actually, I suspect that is probably what Darwin did; his analogies were probably stultifying at the time.
Really? So I am sure you know the explanation of how a species can scientifically change its mode of reproduction WHILE CONTINUING TO REPRODUCE. Specifically you should be able to explain how mammalian reproduction scientifically arose by random stochastic mutations from reptilian egg layers.
Will I have to wait 150 years for an answer?
Indeed, you are raising some of the great philosophical questions concerning the mind. I noticed you replied to my post 4291 - I think you'll be impressed with the open discussion and understanding in the subject that developed from there to here. Hugs!
Evolutionists keep looking for the 'missing link' between man and monkey.
4538 posted on 01/11/2003 1:00 PM EST by gore3000The claim that science has disproved the existence of God is absolute nonsense.
4539 posted on 01/11/2003 1:03 PM EST by gore3000
This gets me every time. Chemistry and, most certainly physical laws, are not indifferent to the sequence chosen.
Totally false. The power of DNA is that the different 'letters' can be arranged in any way possible. This is shown by a simple table of how the symbols in the DNA code are translated into amino acids. All 64 possible combinations have been found to be used in life.
Paul Davies is not aware that the DNA molecule interacts with a whole host of molecules in the environment, using laws of chemistry and physics.
I am sure he is quite aware of it. In fact that is what makes DNA so special - the code, to be useful and sustain life, has to be arranged in such a way as to provide for the functions needed for life. These functions have to be in accordance with the rest of reality and it has to take account of how this is to be accomplished. So you have it absolutely backwards - like most materialists and evolutionists. You are going from what exists and are saying that because something exists the means for its existance had to have arisen deterministically. This is totally false backwards. The effect is not the source of the cause. The determinists are dependent on this fact. You might not be aware, and, apparently, Paul Davies is not aware that the DNA molecule interacts with a whole host of molecules in the environment, using laws of chemistry and physics. It's especially foolish to use this silly canard with respect to an argument about determinism. I'll boil down what his argument amounts to. Life is not dependent on universal laws because a particular reaction is not dependent on specific chemical bonds. He's making a gross generalization error based on anectdotal information.
How do you know that it was intelligently designed? You were not there, there are no witnesses alive from that time. There is no writing from the time.
But this strawman, Bacterial Flagellum has been refuted and discussed so many times that it is insane
Since you claim that it has been refuted so many times with such certainty, then you should be able to give us the short version of the refutation.
Just because we do NOT know the process exactly, does NOT mean that it could not have happened. Impossible is NOT in my vaocabulary. Also, just because YOU are without enough scientific knowledge or imagination to come up wwith a scientific explanation, just as you hero Behe was or is, DOES not mean that Goddidit. That explanation is a proof to me of scientific laziness and lack of knowlesge.
Seems to me that this paragraph shows that your previous one was totally false. The bacterial flagellum has not been scientifically refuted.
You make some totally false statements also. Specifically that Behe's identification of the bacterial flagellum as irreducibly complex is due to lack of scientific knowledge. If that was the case, in the six years since he first made this claim it would have been refuted.
As to your 'refutation' that calling the bacterial flagellum irreducibly complex shows a lack of imagination , just let me say this, the Brothers Grimm had lots of imagination, but their work is not science.
Yeah, go fig. A cordial crevo thread for once. Who screwed up the karma?
‘I am the bread of life. . .(John 6:35).’
"There was a day when Jesus stood up and announced to the people: I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE. The day before Jesus made that speech, he had amazed everyone by miraculously feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread. A lot of people had seen that miracle, so, the next day, they went to a lot of effort to find Jesus, in the hope that they would see something similar happen. They were hoping for more of the same."
"They were being led by their stomachs."
"In response to them, Jesus said, Do not work for the food that spoils. You have gone to some trouble to seek me out in the hope that you will score another belly full. Your effort is misplaced. You need to work for food that does not spoil. You ought to labor for the food that will . . . link(link) - - - you to the life ( // TRUTH )* of God."
"Suppose every young person arriving in this world, could be given a piece of advice. One vital clue, that would set them on a course through life that would save him from wasting his time on vanities; that would keep her from going down dead end roads in futile endeavors. It is just such advice that Jesus is offering here."
"He is saying" :
"Don't give yourself to that which will end in disappointment."
"Don't let the whole effort of your life be for nothing."
"Work for something that ultimately affirms your worth."
"Work for the bread that endures to eternal life."
. . "I am the bread of life."
. . . * my addition ! ! !
Quite correct, however in addition to the above, the fact is that paper disintegrates after a certain amount of time. Almost all our ancient texts are copies made by monks in Carolingian times (9th century). To find something older than that is due to tremendous luck. Yes, in very dry climates such as the sands of Egypt we do find some older texts, but by and large all paper from that time has dissappeared. There certainly was no reason to copy such papers as those ordering a census hundreds of years later. Censuses were quite common in Roman times for the purpose of taxation so there is no reason to doubt that there was such a census at the time of Christ's birth.
I think that Newton's and Leibnitz's coming up with calculus independently and at almost the same time is pretty strong proof that these mathematical theories are discovered.
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.