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."

[VadeRetro]

Because all matter can be expressed as a wave function.

And it's all energy-exchangeable, at least in theory.

[js1138]

What's wrong with them?

[PatrickHenry]

Tranquility restored placemarker.

[AndrewC]

What's wrong with them?

You are invincibly ignorant.

[VadeRetro]

Out for a bit. That should really settle things down.

[AndrewC]

I'm looking for something that looks like awareness. Cats are not rational, but they are aware.

Then I suppose you would be easily satisfied. A car alarm seems to be "aware".

[Doctor Stochastic]

And you can call me when someone has something as profound as a traffic light that doesn't minimizes throughput in either the presence or absence of pedestrians, accidents, etc.

[js1138]

Good of you to look for the meaning of a post instead of taking cheap shots at the minimalist, literal statement.

[js1138]

For a moment I thought AC and g3k would put us over 5000 by this afternoon.

[PatrickHenry]

For a moment I thought AC and g3k would put us over 5000 by this afternoon.

Doesn't seem likely. I sense a definite chill in the air. But surely we can shrug off the ancient "No-Kin issue" and move forward. I see no reason to get bogged down in such foolishness.

[AndrewC]

Good of you to look for the meaning of a post instead of taking cheap shots at the minimalist, literal statement.

I return the favor.

The word you apparently seek is consciousness. You have gone from AI to awareness to, I believe, consciousness. That is what I pointed out in my original post on the subject to you. You took a bleak view of the current possibility of achieving A.I.(precisely ---I don't doubt that A.I. is possible, but would agree that the current state of affairs is pretty bleak. We have achieved some sort of A.I. Deep Blue is evidence of the ability to do something thought to require intelligence. It would be deemed Artificial Intelligence. Consciousness is a different story.

[Junior]

Nope. I consider the tones of your postings (as well as that of a certain other blue poster) to "wreck the conversation." For several hundred posts this thread hosted some of the most civil discourses seen in years among the crevo crew. Turned out, the only difference was the disappearance of the aforementioned blue poster -- proof positive the acrimonious discourses are the result of his attitude. I noticed you leapt into this discussion by slinging mud, indicating you are also incapable of carrying on anything remotely resembling a civil conversation.

[AndrewC]

I noticed you leapt into this discussion by slinging mud, indicating you are also incapable of carrying on anything remotely resembling a civil conversation.

And this is not slinging mud?

Against that, one No-Kin-To-Monkeys violated the sacred rule of "Thou shalt not bitch-slap a fellow creo." At the time, embroiled in argument with the receiver of the rebuff, I simply thought that the behavior showed that intellectual honesty in a creo was possible after all. What happened next was a revelation. A howl went up from slappee that No-Kin was obviously an impostor.

I responded to the revisionist exposition of the event. I called it what it was, revisionism, and then pointed out the events using terms equivalent to those he used in the above referenced paragraph. What tone does the VadeRetro quote above display? And how about the balrog666 characterization of Alamo-girl and Phaedrus as displaying invincible ignorance? Those are civil terms?

[PatrickHenry]

I consider the tones of your postings ...

But why? Anyone who is still miffed over No-Kin, and who actually pings Jim Robinson over the matter, is a worthy candidate for the "virtual ignore" feature. Let us move on, and reclaim the benevolent spirt of discourse which this thread once possessed.

[viaveritasvita]

It doesn't seem right to compare Jim Jones or even Karl Marx to the people-willing-to-die-for-a-hoax argument. Jim Jones was an insane drug addict -- afterwards, most everyone understood the sorrow of people dying to follow Jones, a human, and his movement (for lack of better word) died. He'll be a footnote to history for a while, then relegated to obscurity.

Karl Marx -- wouldn't this be an example of someone and their minions killing others for his own ideology rather than followers dying for the cause?

David Koresh -- I think this group of people died in defense of liberty, altho I understand they were Christians (but whether they were real Christians or had adopted a counterfeit Christianity, I can't say).

After I shut down last night, I also thought of the cult in Kalifornicate that committed suicide to meet their leader in Haley's Comet (or something like that). But, I think this points to the same circumstances as with Jim Jones -- an insane human leader, whose movement died with it's few followers.

Millions of people have been martyred thoughout history for refusing to denounce their belief that Jesus Christ is who is said He is. There is no evidence that Jesus Christ (or the original Jews -- over 500 -- who believed Him to be the Messiah predicted in the OT) was insane or on drugs or a hoaxter (is that a word?) or fraud or that He didn't live, indeed His teachings and the results of His life all point to the epitome of a healthy mind.

[AndrewC]

Anyone who is still miffed over No-Kin, and who actually pings Jim Robinson over the matter, is a worthy candidate for the "virtual ignore" feature. Let us move on, and reclaim the benevolent spirt of discourse which this thread once possessed

The subject was broached by VadeRetro. He brought up the subject as an attack on the honesty of his opponents. I pointed out his revisionism. Now I learn that No-kin, having practiced deception, is still posting on this forum. I alerted the Admin and Jim because I felt that it was inconsistent to keep someone from posting because he apparently broke a guideline yet allowing another known guideline breaker to post. I did not ask for the No-kin conjurer to be banned, rather I ask that medved's ban be reconsidered. This is a guideline

Don't play games - Don't represent yourself as another person, create or use another screen name to avoid a revocation of posting privileges, ...

[viaveritasvita]

Found this in an article in Nation Review (Dec 23 02, p 49, "True and False Faces" Alex Alexiev) and tweaked it slightly for our purposes and hereby submit some "answers" for consideration:

...key question: What drives a movement ideologically?

Submit:

For Evolution: There is no God as we know Him or there is not enought evidence to prove God conclusively from the Biblical accounts and all the ideas that flow from that, which I believe includes feminism, liberalism, secular humanism, moral relativism, etc.

For Creation: There is a God and all the ideas that flow from that.

...key question: Who supports and finances a movement?

Submit:

For Evolution: The NEA; the media; public institutions of higher learning; some liberal churches (altho that might go toward new agism)

For Creation: Ordinary joes who believe in God; churches still holding to the original; the Founding Fathers and Mothers

Another thing I'd like to say is that I dislike the use of the words Intelligent Designer preferring God. ID was forced upon us in order to argue with evolutionists, which necessarily lowered us to their level, but that's spilt milk, I know.

There is something holy in the struggle.

Everything boils down to the struggle/battle between good and evil. Everything.

[Aric2000]

I see, so this is the bottom line for you.

Religion/creationism GOOD

Science/Evolution BAD

Do I have that right?

Also, you like to throw the word Messiah around a lot, can you tell me what it's TRUE Judaic root meaning is?

In other words, what does Messiah MEAN?

[Lurking Libertarian]

...key question: What drives a movement ideologically? Submit:
For Evolution: There is no God as we know Him or there is not enought evidence to prove God conclusively from the Biblical accounts and all the ideas that flow from that, which I believe includes feminism, liberalism, secular humanism, moral relativism, etc.

What a strawman. Evolution, properly understood, is a scientific theory, intended to explain the origin of species once life began. It has nothing to do with atheism, feminism, moral relativism, or any other ideology. It contradicts no religion except the most strictly literal fundamentalist understanding of Genesis. Many believing Jews and Christians have no problem with simultaneously believing that God created humanity and that evolution was the (or a) tool that He used.

[viaveritasvita]

Show me who your heros are, show me whose views are closely aligned to yours, show me whose ideas you believe, and I'll show you yourself. Examine closely the roots of your beliefs.

One thing I wish I had time to develop (altho it's quite possible it's been done several times and much better than I could do) is an idea that we have in Algore & Co. an indicator of what happened in the early Christian church. My thoughts in this vein started (in earnest 'cuz there was much evidence piling up before this) when I heard Gore&Co's idea about our COnstitution -- that is was a living document -- and Gore&Co's twisting of the characters and beliefs of the Founding Fathers (including, implicitly, the Founding Mothers) -- they were ignoble elitists -- and Gore&Co's redefinition of the simple words of the founding documents (the 2nd Amd being a perfect example). I correlated this to the difficulties facing the 1st Century Christians. I envisioned the 1st Century version of Gore&Co. I see clearly the beginnings of the movement to discredit our founders and founding documents -- the discrediting taking the form of the arguments we see on this thread and elsewhere in the world in the attempt to discredit Jesus Christ and the 1st Century Christians. How long before the argument that the Constitution is just an ancient piece of paper that we can no longer defend as being real, etc. or that the founding fathers may not have even existed.

Further, for you Tolkien fans, in a discussion I had with my friends' kids (12, 14, 17) this weekend after viewing Lord of the Rings and Two Towers: The kids had much distain for Borameer -- he was the weakest link, he was evil (altho they eventually agreed that he wasn't evil, but rather the ring was evil and he was just weak in his ability to resist), etc. Yet, they had sympathy/pity for Gollum (the poor thing was tortured). I thought it interesting that they had such an intense dislike for the human character (Borameer) whose struggle was perhaps not as evident as Gollum's -- Borameer's struggle manifested itself in the eventual attempt to grab the power/ring from Frodo (which failed and resulted in Borameer's overcoming his weakness, the consequences of which were that he elevated himself to hero status -- a good consequence -- and was killed for his failure -- a bad consequence). I thought Borameer's holding out as long as he did was admirable and I for one saw his struggles in his actions and words, but that struggle was less noticeable than Gollum's outright struggle (the poor noble thing vs. the ignoble human). Anyway, thought it interesting that the kids recognized the struggle in Gollum and took pity, but the human was held to a higher standard and failed in their eyes.

There is something holy in the struggle!