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."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

The phyla are about 500 million years old because we've essentially defined the sort of differences that require classification into different phyla as being of a magnitude that needs 500 million years to produce.

In layspeak, are you saying that the designation of phyla is based on the geological age of the fossil? If that's the case, are the trunks of the tree of life - indeed, the entire structure - based on age of fossil and analogy?

Even if all of that is true, it would still leave me wondering why we aren't finding Cambrian like fossils for new body plans, in more recent geological layers. Why would the process stop?

[tpaine]

BTW, a cursory reading of post 4886 will show that the analogy to which I spoke was the one which I composed: golden rule is to mental construct as physical laws are to mental construct.

Wrong number. -- Here's the sequence.
Me:
Where is the analogy? #4872

Golden rule is to mental construct as physical laws are to mental construct. # 4877

I didn't make that analogy. I wrote:
"I do not see that this '[mental construct/golden rule] theory, which accounts for abstract 'human rights & laws', --
-- could apply to the physical laws of matter, --"

-- You might try reading with a bit more effort at understanding my actual points. #4884 -tpaine-

Thank you for your post!

[Right Wing Professor]

No, I'm saying that things are separated into distinct phyla because they are very different. Large differences take a long time to evolve.

[Alamo-Girl]

IMHO, this dead horse is not just beaten, it is pulverized. If it matters to anyone, the sequence of posts are 4864, 4867, 4872, 4877, 4878, 4884, 4886, 4893, 4900, 4902 and this one.

Since the posts are argumentative without adding value to the overall discussion, I stand down.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! This is very interesting.

No, I'm saying that things are separated into distinct phyla because they are very different. Large differences take a long time to evolve.

If large differences take a long time to evolve, it follows that the differences between the 50 body plans in the Cambrian Explosion were small back then but appear big to us now. Is this correct?

If so, then again I ask why there are not fossils in more recent geological layers which have a similar small difference to the original fossils in the Cambrian? It doesn't make sense to me that the process should have stopped.

[VadeRetro]

Not only are we not "solid," but we are very "spacey."

Especially since the 1960s. It was fun going over that stuff, even if it was old news to both of us.

Historical note: it was a dumbfounded Ernest Rutherford, working with Geiger and Marsden, who realized how spacey we are.

"It was quite the most incredible event that had ever happened to me in my life. It was as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you."

Rutherford and the Discovery of the Nucleus.

[tpaine]

IMHO, this dead horse is not just beaten, it is pulverized. If it matters to anyone, the sequence of posts are 4864, 4867, 4872, 4877, 4878, 4884, 4886, 4893, 4900, 4902 and this one.
Since the posts are argumentative without adding value to the overall discussion, I stand down.


Thank you for your post!
I agree on standing down, - and IMHO you could have done so, and made your exact same point, at #4877.
Please, - take the last word.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm starting to think we're really gonna make it to 5000.

[gore3000]

Aledged 'textbook lies'

THEY ARE NOT ALLEGED. The Haeckel fraud has been known for decades. The moth fraud has been known for decades too. The falseness of the Darwin's finches has been known for decades too. The textbooks continue to spread these lies. Only because the evolutionists have been in control of the shcools with their atheist friends at the NEA for decades has it been impossible to get these lies off the textbooks and the curriculums. And the evolutionists are still trying to defend the teaching of these lies. Yes, the textbooks need to be rewritten and textbooks with decades old lies should not be purchased by any school system.

[longshadow]

>I'm starting to think we're really gonna make it to 5000.<

Gratuitous bump in service to the quest for the elusive 5000th post.... and camoflaged placemarker

[gore3000]

Even though his post was made numerous times, I never saw the evos refute it.-me-

"I never saw" from a blind man with no memory.

I have a very good memory and have seen that post ignored dozens of times (as have many of my own been ignored). The only 'refutation' which I ever saw tried was some pitiful answer you would link to because it was so ridiculous and so much not a refutation that you were ashamed of anyone seeing it. It was 'lying' by linking (and adding a nice sounding title which was not backed up by the article). Just one of the typical dishonest tactics of evolutionists of which pushing the abuse button on medved to silence his true posting of the silliness of evolution is only one of many.

[PatrickHenry]

If large differences take a long time to evolve, it follows that the differences between the 50 body plans in the Cambrian Explosion were small back then but appear big to us now. Is this correct?

If so, then again I ask why there are not fossils in more recent geological layers which have a similar small difference to the original fossils in the Cambrian? It doesn't make sense to me that the process should have stopped.

If I understood Right Wing Professor correctly, it's just that there hasn't been enough time. It may be that in another 200 million years or so, as frogs (for example) keep getting more and more mutated, there will eventually be a point where they have become so different that they are recognized as constituting a whole new phylum, although today, in their present form, they're still just a branch of cordata. "These things take time," is not just a simple answer, it may actually be the correct answer.

[gore3000]

If there are any new lurkers who don't know who "medved"

The cowardly slimer is at it again attacking someone who cannot defend himself and giving personal information on the net. Let's see you put your name on your posts coward.

[tpaine]

Nit-picking.
There are ways to counter 'textbook lies' without involving state force against publishers.

[PatrickHenry]

King of Slime.

[balrog666]

[Hug]!

And if you like New Age music, allow me to recommend the following by Constance Demby:

Faces of Christ

Originally composed for the video of the same name, the score is a 58 minute uninterrupted stream of serene, symphonic sacred music inspired by the vibration of the Christ energy. Intimate, contemplative, ambient, moving. Good for meditation or atmospheric uplift.

Music samples are available at www.constancedemby.com or www.amazon.com. I highly recommend it (even for atheist, communist, slimer evolutionists)!

Her other albums are classics too.

[gore3000]

You would be an interesting adversary if you ever tried to understand your sources.

Catastrophism does not support gradual evolution in any way and yours and Patrick's saying otherwise is totally ridiculous and illogical. By definition catastrophism cannot be the reason for gradual evolution. In addition to which, if my statement that we do not indeed see plants and animals dying of hunger or lack of sustenance all over as Darwinian Malthusianism claims (Malthus's theory only made the claim regarding people, not plants and animals and of course it was absolutely wrong also). The reason you and your fellow evos cannot find proof against my statement is quite simple - it does not exist. As anyone can easily see and as the saying goes - there are plenty of fish in the sea - and the earth could support plenty more living things as the abundance of nature everywhere one looks gives proof of.

The observed proof is that both plants and animals adjust to the environment. Plants grow smaller when they have little nourishment or little room to grow as anyone with house plants knows. The same for animals, they reproduce less when they have little food. Goldfish even grow smaller when they are put in small tanks but can grow quite large in lakes and streams. So no, the Malthusian struggle for life is false both in humans and all other living things. It is just another of many parts of Darwinian theory getting the facts absolutely backwards.

[tpaine]

Are there any differences between Conservatives and Libertarians?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821603/posts
   
Posted by f.Christian to tpaine
On News/Activism 01/14/2003 4:16 PM PST #345 of 347

The 'level' playing field of libwhackery . . .
lib side - - - the end // point of an inclined VERTICAL triangle that extends to a base of an unconnected // floating reality (( buried )) ! ! !
The separation is infinite // complete // total // permanent ! ! !
________________________________

Hey 'fletch'! -- How come you posted the above, -- to a reply I made to Cultural Jihad about his lib-whacking habits?

-- Hmmmmmmm? - Confusion perhaps as to which persona you were using?

[gore3000]

PatrickHenry's link: there is general agreement over the existence of 6 major extinction events.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinian/Malthusian struggle for life theory. This struggle is according to Darwin and evolution theory a constant one. It is a struggle between species not between plants and animals and volcanos, meteorites or whatever. You both know that but you are just too dishonest to admit it so you just insult and back each other up in your lies.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Just one of the typical dishonest tactics of evolutionists of which pushing the abuse button on medved to silence his true posting of the silliness of evolution

I would have to agree with you. Earlier in the thread, PH was kind enough to provide a link to one of Medved's posts from early last year. I realized after reading through many of his posts why the evos were so gung-ho on trying to silence him; he is very blunt, well-informed, and entertaining. After reading the thread, I came to the conclusion that there seemed to be an organized effort from a few individuals to have him banned.

On a side note, I would strongly encourage those who haven't had a chance to read some of Medved's stuff to do so. He presents his information well.

FRegards, MM