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."
I do not recall the threads associated with this incident. But I do know that intentionally posting under a false identity and also, intentionally misrepresenting one's true position - are wrongful on this forum.
If you are aware of someone doing such a thing, you would be doing him a favor by advising him of the history of Eschoir - who posted under many aliases and tried to create friction by fabricating inflammatory positions, such as the outrageous remark that Jesus would not have died if he had been packing heat.
Jim, this thread may be the most respectful and free exchange of ideas we've had thus far on the evolution v intelligent design debate. The subject matter of this dispute has to do with conduct on previous threads which have evidently been pulled some time ago.
I guess one can look at information content independently of meaning or phenotype. It doesn't seem to be very useful, does it?
I’ve been reading quite a bit and am not aware of anyone looking at information content independent of meaning. I have not seen the term phenotype used very often in the information theory and molecular biology articles I’ve read. Perhaps the inquiry is from such a different angle, it’s not at issue at this time?
All of mathematical information theory looks at information independent of meaning.
Could you elaborate, e.g. how can information not have meaning?
Well, I wasn't really seeking to dismiss him. The Commentaries are quite historically significant, albeit there is a strong propaganda aspect to them. The point I'm making is that we can be more historically certain that the words in the New Testatment are reliable than we can Caesar's.
is not a process of what written accountis ealiest
Caesar's work was written before the Bible.
but which written account is more reliable and authoritive.
These things are determined by scholarship. The Bible holds up better than any other work of antiquity. I'll provide links to the Kenyon quote and others below.
By your logic then we must take the Sumerian writings on Gods and Godhood as actually fact because it is more ancient.
What we are discussing isn't the religious teachings found in the New Testament but their historical context. By the traditional means of scholarship, the Gospels are exactly what they purport to be.
Tribune 7 wrote "for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the N.T." . . .
I didn't write that. Sir Frederic Kenyon of the British Museum wrote that. Here is a link to attributing that view to him. And another. And here is a another link with an extenstive quote from Kenyon made during a internet debate over Islam.
Concerning archaeology, it was his research in that field that led an unbelieving William M. Ramsay to become a Christian.
Hehe...well of course I know that's true...after all, I have seen your Control Room ;^)
Please define "great"...
VII. Mathematics in the Third Millennium? - Chaitin
Information is a really revolutionary new kind of concept, and recognition of this fact is one of the milestones of this age.
What is the physical meaning of information apart from considerations of messages or minds?
From what I've read here and on the message boards it looks like the discussion would probably veer off into Philosophy. Perhaps we don't want to 'go there?'
The original papers should be available at Bell Labs.
There's also a book by Warren Weaver and Claude Shannon about the subject.
This is all true. But the subject was broached by Vade in post 4625 and was deceptive as to the actual events. First, he noted in a post that jennyp had brought up the subject of one side of the evolution debate posing as a proponent for the other side and successfully pulling off the ruse. Both sides were considered. I commented that the "evos" would win hands down because they were practiced at the art of misrepresentation. The opinions flew back and forth for a period and then died down. Within this period Vade had asked for a "creo" to step into the shoes of an "evo" for the purposes of demonstrating "evolution" and not directly related to our discussion. No-kin appeared and volunteered. The "demonstration" hovered around mammary glands (IIRC) and why birds don't have them. No-kin asserted his lack of familiarity with the "vocabulary" of an evolutionist yet he was able to use terms normally in the lexicon of a Darwinian. During an interchange Junior stepped into the Vade/No-kin pas de deux by completely gutting a No-kin statement and changing its meaning. I used this as an opportunity to show the "evo"'s misrepresentation. I answered Junior pointing this out as an example of what I had asserted about the "evos". No-kin then answered me, but I had not entered his little charade, I was "conversing" with Junior on the subject Vade and I had "discussed". I answered him completely convinced that he was a fake, but waited until a later period, when PH brought up how "compliant" he was, to point this out. I merely answered..."things aren't always what they appear to be". They weren't. He was a fake. He broke the rules. His account was banned.
Now the reason I addressed the Admin Moderator and Jim Robinson was not for that fakery, but for the fact that Vade now practically admits that this person is someone he knows, who is still allowed to post. Medved is not allowed to post. I find that inconsistent.
Vade also writes that this was just harmless fun. If it is fun and harmless, then the "funster" should have the guts to admit the fun by revealing him/herself.
I find the definition very interesting but too narrow because it focuses on The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Also, information theory has broadened considerably since 1948 and your original statement was all encompassing:
All of mathematical information theory looks at information independent of meaning
Omega, for instance, is more akin to an array or a database than to communication - in that a key question is whether one can determine content at a specified position of Omega.
I'm confident that the responsibile people are aware of post 4687 as well as the information accumulated on this subject.
I truly do not wish to get in the middle of any disputes of this type. IMHO, whether we want justice, fairness, equality or the same break as the next guy - it can rarely be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Nevertheless, the first to stand down from a dispute is always the winner; and if the person suffering injury is a Christian, he wins twice.
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.