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."
Indeed, there is much contention about the meaning of the verse. It is something like the faith/works issue we briefly acknowledged and decided not to debate on this thread.
I mentioned it because, in my reading of the Word - which is based entirely on how my spirit responds - it is a clear prohibition of cruelty to animals. Others of course may not read it that way.
I don't think so. The psalmist is not saying: "Okay, God, whatever you say is fine with me!" The psalmist is using his own standards of good and evil, weighing the words of the Lord, finding them good, and for that reason he is praising the Lord:
psalms
19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
I can see it now...child rapists and pedophiles and serial murderers will no longer be punished, they will be given drugs and released into society. Anyone who would support such a thing has NEVER been a victim of crime.
How do you figure that? YOu are reading into the text. the text clearly states the truth about God's laws, it is stated AS A FACT, not as an opinion. I really don't know how you could interpret it the way you do. The language is plain - he is stating facts, moral absolutes. You must be interpreting through the cloudy lens of your anti-Christian worldview (no surprise there). The only subjective thing about it is that the psalmist is personally rejoicing in the truth and righteousness of the Lord (facts about the Lord not opinions). This statement of the psalmist is also consistent with what GOD says about Himself (where God is talking not the psalmist) in other Scriptures. You simply do not understand the verse, but the conclusions you make about it are out of context.
The psalmist is using his own standards of good and evil, weighing the words of the Lord, finding them good, and for that reason he is praising the Lord:
This is one of those issues where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I see the Scriptures as the Word of God, not as mere literature. That is why I can spiritually feed on the them.
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. - John 5:39
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. - John 6:56
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. - Acts 17:11
Alas, we have so many issues where we disagree (not overly serious ones, I trust). If you don't agree with me about Psalm 19, there are the other examples I gave -- Abraham and Moses in actual disagreement with God. God literally negotiating with Abraham about the number of righteous souls it would take to save Sodom and Gommorah, God actually changing his mind after being rebuked by Moses. I think there's a lot more going on here than merely our free will to disagree with God. I read all of this as indicating that we are possessed of an innate moral sense.
Before I respond, I want to include the following verse in the above collection:
The scriptures you quote do not justify passing judgment on God; rather, they show that man can petition God and how to do so. Moses and Abraham both appeal to God that His mercy should override His judgment.
1 Cor 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1Cor 1:18
Unless you approach scripture with an open heart and an open mind, you will remain blind to the spiritual truths within. I urge you to lay aside your presuppositional biases and ask God to open your eyes to the Truth. The only way you are going to see the sciptural truths and appreciate them is if God removes the scales from your eyes. However, God resists the proud but exalts the humble. Your pride is in the way. Here is what God says about the prideful:
1Cr 1:28 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Cr 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Cr 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
What I don't understand is how you became the first person in the history of the world capable of cutting through all the BS and seeing the truth directly. Prior to your inception, mankind simply stumbled around, seeing the world through a glass, darkly. Millions of peoply have thought about the points you see clearly, and hundreds of thousands have died because what they saw differed in some respect frome what church authorities wanted them to see. Meanwhile, thousand of denominations and sects have formed, each interpreting the Bible somewhat differently -- and all the time they were just waiting for you to set them straight.
I apologise for forgetting exactly what you said about Leviticus. Did it have something about health and sanitation? I guess I forgot all the improvements in medical understanding that occurred in the first decades of A.D., making pork and shellfish suddenly safe to eat.
Yes, we agree on this.
The scriptures you quote do not justify passing judgment on God; rather, they show that man can petition God and how to do so. Moses and Abraham both appeal to God that His mercy should override His judgment.
You may be right, but I read more into those passages. I think that man makes his decision about accepting God based on his judgment of whether God is worthy, and (no surprise) he uses his capacity to discern good and evil to decide that accepting God is the proper thing to do -- just as we use our same power of discernment to reject Satan. But it's man's moral judgment that is involved here, not merely man's obedience to divine authority. Remember, in the very early days, man thought he had a choice of many gods. The Hebrews made a choice. They didn't merely submit; they exercised judgment in making their decision. Or so it seems to me. As I've often said, I'm only a layman, not a professional theologian. I don't pretend to have all the answers.
It certainly is wonderful to be in the presence of someone who fully understands God, yet is modest about it.
I think that man makes his decision about accepting God based on his judgment of whether God is worthy, and (no surprise) he uses his capacity to discern good and evil to decide that accepting God is the proper thing to do -- just as we use our same power of discernment to reject Satan.
To the contrary, the Word tells me that not everyone has ears to hear, but for those who do, the only choice is whether to reject Christ:
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. – Romans 8:30
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:26-27
Forgiveness is tough, but it's required by your faith. Can you give me a reason, based on Christian principles, for punishing someone whose mental equipment is observably defective? I will grant that we have limited knowledge of the brain at present, but history suggests this is temporary.
Have you ever considered there might be a reason why god forgives us?
I think your early men may have had some wisdom that we have lost. Even if we accept the Bible as the ultimate moral authority, it does not dictate every moral decision we have to make during the day. It is pretty easy to decide not to kick the cat when we are angry, but more difficult to arbitrate between waring children. More difficult to decide on risky forms of medical treatment for children.
The term "moral compass" was corrupted during the clinton administration, but it's a valid term. We define ourselves by these little choices as well as the big ones.
When people say the truth of the Bible is self documenting -- that if you listen with your heart you will hear it -- I find myself hearing, in these passages, the voices of mean spirited church elders trying to scare their members into submission.
Indeed. Virtue is all-pervasive. Imagine a great statesman who does all the grand things correctly, but at home he's cruel to his wife, his children, his servants, and even his pets. He's an immoral man, notwithstanding his great works.
My brain just exploded. I can't imagine a statesman trying to be moral in the grand things. A coupling of Jimmy Carter and George McGovern comes to mind. Could any such nation, so governed, long survive? I'd rather have a leader that can protect the nation and tell his daughter the truth.
Well, okay. A "great statesman" is too much of a stretch, I agree.
that if you listen with your heart you will hear it
That is my point. The Word of God is way beyond our mental ability to grasp it. Trying to do that leads to confusion, contention, pride and error. The ability to hear is a gift of God.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: - Ephesians 2:8
But if you search the Scriptures for promises of equality, you will not find it. What you will find may be as offensive as it was to some of the Jews, that Gentiles were also being called to faith in Christ:
[What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? - Romans 9:20-24
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.