Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

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."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; rades
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 5,121-5,1405,141-5,1605,161-5,180 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: AndrewC; RadioAstronomer; Physicist
Yes, something must start the process, but it seems to me that you can't have "big" things buzzing about haphazardly without a cause. As to internal temperature being the reason for the collapse of a cloud, I do not see how it can introduce the angular momentum for a spinning disk.

I will defer to the FR physics brains, but this is what I understand: as a molecular cloud collapses, there is almost always a certain amount of angular momentum present, either from particle impacts as the cloud is perturbed or from the very small gravitational forces present between those particles...thus "spin" is introduced to the system on more than one level very early on. The entire molecular cloud begins to rotate, while smaller areas of greater density within the cloud rotate around individual central points of mass. As time progresses, these areas of greater density essentially sweep up matter near them...ultimately to form a protostar or protoplanets depending on their relative positions within the molecular cloud (now properly called an "accretion disk").

However, to repeat a very large caveat...I am NOT a physicist. I am fairly certain others can give a much better description of these events.

5,141 posted on 01/16/2003 12:06:08 AM PST by Aracelis (Dammit Jim, I'm a geochemist...not a [insert profession here].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5053 | View Replies]

To: donh
This is not so cut and dried as you like to pretend. Right Wing is correct. Distinct speciation is a byproduct of the desire of academic zoologists' to work with convenient bounderies, it is not a reflection of natural events.

It is indeed cut and dried. Especially with reference to the question of evolution. If evolution is about descent then a proper definition, an objective one, of species is essential. The only criteria which is totally objective is reproductive viability. It takes into consideration all the biological factors of descent. Any other definition is subjective and prone to manipulation.

5,142 posted on 01/16/2003 12:07:05 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5124 | View Replies]

To: donh
The recent ribosomal genetic clock calculations merely suggest that a single commmon ancester is not looking like such a hot bet anymore. That is a far cry from "not being in any way related to each other".

Genetic clocks are nonsense. There is no way to set the time as I explained before. The problem is that there are far too many differences between the archaea, eukaryotes and prokaryotes that would be needed to be changed in one fell swoop for descent of one from another to be possible. It is the same problem as the descent of mammals from egg layers. Too many changes necessary at once for it to be possible.

5,143 posted on 01/16/2003 12:12:01 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5132 | View Replies]

To: donh
When one considers all the numerous absolutely new genes that would have had to arise totally at random to create just the 1.5 million known species, one has to see that evolution is totally impossible because as I say, a chance of a near impossible event can be attributed to luck, a chance of numerous nearly impossible events occurring is totally impossible and a ridiculous assertion.-me-

How many times you gonna sing this song?

Until someone finds a SCIENTIFIC refutation of it. Fairy tales about anything being possible are not such a refutation.

5,144 posted on 01/16/2003 12:16:24 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5139 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
It is not faith you despise, but faith in God.

How do you know this? Has God given you special sight to look into the hearts and minds of evolutionists? How is it that you "know" all evolutionists are pitted in mortal combat against the notion of a Creator? Could it not be that as we seek to understand how everything works we are also looking for a greater truth? Personally, nothing would please me more than to know with certainty that there is another life after this one, and that one entity holds the keys of knowledge and the future in His or Her hands.

Do not be so quick to judge...or attack.

5,145 posted on 01/16/2003 12:17:03 AM PST by Aracelis (Dammit Jim, I'm a geochemist...not a [insert profession here].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5136 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
It is indeed cut and dried. Especially with reference to the question of evolution. If evolution is about descent then a proper definition, an objective one, of species is essential.

Nonsense. Where is this writ? Is an absolute and comprehensive definition of a star a requirement to do stellar astronomy? In your dreams.

The only criteria which is totally objective is reproductive viability.

What? Since when is "total objectivity" a measure of the reality of a natural phenomena? Unfortunately for your argument, a mare doesn't pay too much attention to questions of "total objectivity" or "reproductive viability" when a comely donkey is in heat and in the local vicinity.

It takes into consideration all the biological factors of descent. Any other definition is subjective and prone to manipulation.

What is this, Absolutist night? Even if you hold your breath until you turn blue, there is no detectable barrier between species that corresponds to zoological species charts. There is only relative speciation, along a varied spectrum, of one creature with respect to another. If you think speciation is a tangible barrier with tangible physical existence, kindly put it up on the microscope stand so we can all look at it.

It is just a classification idea which creationists treat as if it were a law of nature--it ain't. All definitions are, in some measure, subjective and prone to manipulation. As has been pointed out to creationists on innumerable occasions, the social impact of an idea, including how subjectively manipulable it is, is not a valid measure of it's truth.

5,146 posted on 01/16/2003 12:50:16 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5142 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Genetic clocks are nonsense. There is no way to set the time as I explained before.

What are you talking about? What time? Genetic clocks measure relative mutational distance, not objective elapsed time.

The problem is that there are far too many differences between the archaea, eukaryotes and prokaryotes that would be needed to be changed in one fell swoop for descent of one from another to be possible.

Since, as I said, mutual descent is not what's been suggested, there is no point in my answering this. What the ribosomal genetic clocks suggest is that they all came from something else not presently observable, and not as a direct linear descent from a single common ancestor.

It is the same problem as the descent of mammals from egg layers. Too many changes necessary at once for it to be possible.

Same over-reaching argument over and over. You don't know how many intermediate steps, in how many directions, from how many intermediate environmental pressures there were, you don't know what they were, and you don't what order they occured in and you don't know which intermediate environments might have leveraged the changes. Your assumptions are unwarranted.

5,147 posted on 01/16/2003 1:03:58 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5143 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
God and evolution are on the opposite end of the spectrum and do you think you can mesh them - - - folly ! ! !
5,148 posted on 01/16/2003 1:04:53 AM PST by f.Christian (Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5145 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Until someone finds a SCIENTIFIC refutation of it. Fairy tales about anything being possible are not such a refutation.

You don't need a SCIENTIFIC refutation of a non-SCIENTIFIC thesis. Quoting me odds without showing me your state-space and selection criteria gives you no warrant of authority about what is and is not a fairy tale.

5,149 posted on 01/16/2003 1:06:19 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5144 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
How can you just Lie like that. I mean the web site is clear and you just Lied about what it said. Are you so bigoted agaimst evolution you have to lie even about a article on the internet. Im sorry people like you make me literally sick.
5,150 posted on 01/16/2003 2:55:08 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5119 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
people like you make me literally sick.

That's why I recommend "virtual ignore." It will quickly restore your health.

5,151 posted on 01/16/2003 3:49:30 AM PST by PatrickHenry (PH is really a great guy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5150 | View Replies]

To: donh
It is just a classification idea which creationists treat as if it were a law of nature--it ain't. All definitions are, in some measure, subjective and prone to manipulation. As has been pointed out to creationists on innumerable occasions, the social impact of an idea, including how subjectively manipulable it is, is not a valid measure of it's truth.

Science is objective. If it is not objective, it is not science. Your (and other evolutionists) avowal of subjective definitions of species shows quite well that the evidence for evolution is so deficient that you need to manipulate the facts in order to support it.

5,152 posted on 01/16/2003 6:01:55 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5146 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
A Turing machine that worked like DNA would also have to have the decription of the rest of the biological mechanism.

Everything we know about DNA may be implemented on a Turing machine. I don't think that we end up with anything that functions like DNA. Maybe I'm minimizing the importance of algorithmic computability. To me, it's little more than saying that everything we know about DNA is semantically expressable; we can write a book about it.

5,153 posted on 01/16/2003 6:03:52 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5115 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman; AndrewC
Clouds collapse because of gravity. The cloud has a mass and each part of the cloud is attracted by it.

Angular momentum is conserved. The angular momentum that the cloud has to begin with is equal to the total angular momentum of all the objects that condense out of it. Like a spinning figure skater pulling in her arms, the angular velocity increases as the cloud condenses.

More interesting is why the cloud collapses into a disk. This is because there is a net angular momentum to begin with. When the cloud begins to collapse, the particles in it have elliptical orbits in all sorts of orientations. As the cloud collapses, these particles collide, and the components of their orbital angular momentum cancel out...in every direction but one. The particles that are left in the disk can only transfer that net angular momentum between each other, but this keeps them in the plane. Eventually, the orbits become nearly circular as their radial components cancel. Collisions between objects become less frequent, as their paths largely no longer intersect.

5,154 posted on 01/16/2003 6:09:32 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5141 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Absolutely correct. It would be interesting if DNA couldn't be simulated on a Turing machine.
5,155 posted on 01/16/2003 6:43:27 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. - William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5153 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Your information is rather out-of-date. You severely underestimate what can be programmed.
5,156 posted on 01/16/2003 6:55:51 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (To remove a mountain: start by carrying away small stones. - Chinese Proverb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5140 | View Replies]

To: donh
Escher castles are designed, one might say meticuously, in fact, but I doubt one will ever be made.

Somewhat irrelevant to the discussion of objects that are observed to exist and asserted to be designed.

5,157 posted on 01/16/2003 7:08:57 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5122 | View Replies]

To: donh
Several of the examples I offered up do not fit into any of these four catagories. Our universe could be a balancing shadow of some more important thing similar to a universe, and whose laws merely reflect an act of dumping to maintain stasis in the xverses--in other words, we're a sewer plant. Our universe could be tied in an endless loop by, amongst other means, time's beginning and end being identical events.

Your speculations are non-rational as they are not based on anything other than your wild imagination. The only rational explanations are the ones I listed. No amount of chimerical conjecture will change that.

5,158 posted on 01/16/2003 7:09:24 AM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5134 | View Replies]

To: donh
Thank you so much for sharing your experiences! And thanks for the chuckle!

Generating special purpose languages for specific industrial applications using lex and yacc is a powerfully economical idea that doesn't get nearly enough air time, in my humble opinion.

I agree! IMHO, the end user is rarely able to comprehend their own future need. It seems the best solution is to generate those special purpose languages and leave them with a very strong database and archive. My two cents...

5,159 posted on 01/16/2003 7:12:43 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5135 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
I think you have made your point about statistical improbability several time on this thread alone. My question is, given that living things are designed, what kind of research program would IDers propose to study the designs and perhaps create new ones? How would ID approach the design of a new form of life, and how would this program of research differ from one proposed by an evolutionist?
5,160 posted on 01/16/2003 7:15:38 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 5,121-5,1405,141-5,1605,161-5,180 ... 7,021-7,032 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson