Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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 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.

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."

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.

How many criminals do you know that are mentally defective - some are just plain evil. You are basing your entire argument on conjecture since you have zero evidence that crime results from brain defects, one that you admitted has no basis in evidence, but is really the product of your atom-smashing materialistic brain. Many people commit crimes because they are greedy, selfish, for revenge, etc. - and to relegate these motives to brain damage is ludicrous.

Forgiveness does not require the abrogation of justice! Heard of Justice? Let me give you a short bible lesson: All the great men of the bible blew it and God forgave the ones that asked for His forgiveness - David, Moses, Samson, but in each case, God did not relieve them of the consequences of their sin. Moses was not allowed to go into the promised land, David was not allowed to build the temple and his own son turned against him, and Samson never regained his eyesight. Criminals are punished because they deserve punishment as Justice demands. I can forgive someone and still demand justice. Under your system, murdering pedophiles would be free to ply their evil trade again and again and again. Your arguments are starting to bore me. Until you answer this next paragraph which I have written twice now, our exchange is over. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on an intelletually dishonest person. Answer this or talk to someone else:

Your arguments are just your peculiar mental atoms being stimulated inside your head, so why should I even bother listening to your atoms. I have my own atoms. What possible reason could you have for arguing the topic when your very arguments are nothing more than mental atoms. Your thoughts are just molecular matter in motion and cannot possibly have any meaning. So why are you trying to influence my atoms - your mental atoms are no more meaningful than mine - neither can have any meaning in your materialistic system.

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'm not the first person - there are many - you just read the wrong writers. Besides, Jesus words are in the bible. Actually, before Jesus, people just stumbled around. Yes, millions and millions of people have believed differently, however, just because a majority believes something does not make it true - in fact, Jesus pointed out that the path to destruction is wide and many go that way, but the path to heaven is narrow and there are FEW THAT FIND IT. So your argument is with Jesus Christ Himself, not with me. Argue with Jesus. As for the different denominations, almost all of the mainline Christian demoninations are apostate - they no longer believe the basic tenets of the Christian faith, little things like the Resurrection (cornerstone of the faith) and virgin birth - I don't know why such people bother going to church - it is empty and void of any meaning or hope without these basic tenets. That all started when they began to doubt the bible as the authority for life. Now, all they have for authority is themselves - just another form of moral relativism. You don't know much about it, and I don't have time to educate you, so move on.

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.

If you bothered to read my posts, you might have seen it. See post 5559.

Then youy surmise that it is possible that God is arbitrary and absolutes come from somewhere else. Name the WHERE ELSE! Name a possible source above God. God is the highest possible reference point.

You said that moral dictates from God may be arbitrary, which quite naturally leads to the following question: If God declares moral an immoral act, are you capable of determining the difference? Only if your answer is "No" are you able to logically rule out the possibility of absolute morality.

As to where absolute morals come from, the answer is implicit. They are absolute, i.e. sourceless.

You said that moral dictates from God may be arbitrary, which quite naturally leads to the following question: If God declares moral an immoral act, are you capable of determining the difference? Only if your answer is "No" are you able to logically rule out the possibility of absolute morality.

That is an evasive answer. Actually, I mis-spoke when I made that post. I do not believe moral absolutes can be arbitrary. What I meant to say was that even if they were arbitrary (which they are not) and from God, they would STILL be from God. But the fact is, they are not arbitrary in the sense that God just made them up on a whim. How can something be simultaneously "arbitrary" and "absolute" - can't logically. Morals flow directly from the character and personage of God Himself. They are an outflow of His personality. They are not something he made up.

The question for you still is: Explain the WHERE ELSE for moral absolutes that would be behind God.

But the fact is, they are not arbitrary in the sense that God just made them up on a whim. How can something be simultaneously "arbitrary" and "absolute" - can't logically. Morals flow directly from the character and personage of God Himself.

Then you are simply renaming absolute morality and dressing it up in fancy clothes. Moral atheists can exist. They just order the factory standard version and do without a premium sound system, SMITE lever, and eternal warranty.

But I seem to recall a few passages in the Bible where God didn't exactly personify this moral character and personage you mentioned.

No I am not. This has always been my position. Moral absolutes can only come from God. I have said this at least 10 times on this thread. Again, I challenge you to name another source for moral absolutes. I am still waiting (and I'll be waiting a loonggggg time). Yes, moral atheists exist, but they have no idea where morals come from - most believe they are man-made, since atheism provides no source for them other than their own materialistic brains. If an atheist be consistent, he has to be a moral relativist because moral absolutes must have a source in order to exist. What is that source?

But I seem to recall a few passages in the Bible where God didn't exactly personify this moral character and personage you mentioned.

According to our presuppositions, perhaps. I can't think of one single passage where God went against His own character. Your problem is that you are judging scripture thru the lens of your anti-Christian bias and your other presuppositions. I know people like you well. You look for objections for the sole purpose of arguing with Christians and justifying your own worldview. You are hardly an objective observer. In the end, with all due respect, you are a finite ball of dust who has very limited knowledge. Who are you to stand in judgment of the one who flung the galaxies into their orbits? That is the height of arrogance and pride, isn't it?

In your present state, you are incapable of understanding the bible or God as it must be spiritually discerned. Look up 1Cor 2:14 (got a bible?) and 1Cor 1:18 and see for yourself. God does not reveal himself to skeptics. He only reveals Himself to people who seek Him with earnest hearts. That is why I always argue from your point of view.

They are absolute, i.e. sourceless

This answer is a non-rational leap and is nonsensical and attempts to redefine terms. Absolute does not mean sourceless. The definite of absolute is "intrinsic, essential, universal." Let's not try to redefine the terms in mid-debate as this is a logical fallacy known as fallacy of equivocation. Is sourceless your new word for absolute? Then I will thank you to stop using the word "absolute" when speaking of morality - use "sourceless morals"

That being said, how can reality be sourceless? This is like saying, "I don't know where they come from, they just are." This is much more of a leap than believing they come from God! The absurdities people embrace just to remain in their rebellion! If they are sourceless, then they are non-existent!

If morality doesn't come from natural selection (you have just said it doesn't have to), where does it come from?

As you seem to be refusing to differentiate the two questions at issue, I will try to do it for you:

Just how are humans able to make moral choices?

By figuring out what's good for the commons, like I said. No brain surgery required.

Does free will exist? If it does, how does it exist? Is it a mere material process in the brain?

The best prevailing answer to this is that nobody sensible cares. If you can't demonstrate pre-determination, and you can't, you might as well act as if free will prevails. The cost and rewards remain the same regardless.

Tell me, where does the sense of "ought" that we have come from?

The SENSE of "ought" is a natural outgrowth of the genetic advantage of altruism. The specific applications of "ought" have to figured out by our giant brains, because we no longer live in the tribes that engendered the attribute.

Those who think it's peachy scaring people into morality or compassion by threatening them with hell if they don't--and holding out the carrot of heaven if they do--follow the written rules, are engaged in wishful thinking of mind-boggling dimension, in my humble opinion. That's not morality--that's an invitation to have a culture based on hypocrisy.

Seems to me that if those preaching religion and salvation do believe in what they say it is not hypocrisy.

I didn't suggest that, although, from subsequent acts and long observation, I think it markedly true in many cases. Jim Baker comes to mind apropos my example. What I suggested is that the audience for this stuff has a preponderant population that considers it dispensible drivel that's good for camoflaging and aiding one's selfish intentions. How many people attend your church mostly because it's a good place to make business contacts or get dates, or because it's the only game in town on a quiet sunday? The count is uncomfortably high at every church I ever attended.

By latest best guess, approximately the same place electron/positron pairs come from.

That's quite an extrapolation form the micro to the macro, however, you evolutionists are known for such leaps of faith.

You asked for an example of something coming from nothing. Apparently you concede we have one. If, in the end, steady-state prevails, it's matter can be quite nicely explained by electron/positron generation. It's not such a great leap. &, by the way, all hypotheses are leaps of faith. Some are just more rigorously tested than others, and we tend to call those scientific hypotheses.

Animals have very distinct senses of right and wrong, and they make moral distinctions all the time. Spend a day at the zoo watching the elephants "aunties" taking care of, correcting and educating offspring they are unrelated to. You'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference in motivation between humans and elephants in this regard.

hahaha. Are you from PETA? Who are you kidding? Animals have no sense of "ought" and do not have the capacity to discern right and wrong.

Sure they do, in all kinds of ways. All social predators, for example, have built in reticence about bearing claw toward their fellows. You can see it refined into quite an ornate dance in wolves for example, where specific submissive postures suppress anger responses in larger opponents, but only for tribal members. Now what is this?--suppressing a natural urge to anger because why? What is it that cause prairie dog sentinals to fight their natural instincts to duck and cover when a hawk approaches? What is it that causes gorilla males to defend offspring not their own when the tribe faces predators? Your claim of exclusivity for humans to have morals is not defensable when one asks into the details of existence.

You can't tell anything from their behavior other than they have certain instincts since you can't communicate with them. You can't communicate with them because they do not have language.

Of course they do, they just aren't nearly as good at it as we are. Do claim you don't communicate with your dog?

That's another big difference. Give me the evidence that says animals know the difference between right and wrong, or even that they have a sense of ought.

Piffle. Give me the evidence that humans do. History, jails and courts and psych wards seem to be bulging to the seams with the suggestion that morals are rather more hit & miss in humans than in many of their near relatives.

Give me the evidence that says animals can solve calculus problems, that animals have self awareness wherein the ponder their own existence and origin, that animals have a spiritual dimension (ever see an elephant worship or build a temple to God?). It is absurd in the extreme for you to put animals on a par with humans. Are you a member of PETA?

This is largely irrelevant. Animals aren't as good as we are at a lot of things, so what? The question is-apparently I need to remind you--where does the tendency to morality come from? Elephants don't have hands, so building a temple would seem a bit of a stretch, now wouldn't it? Like many of our near relatives they can be embarassed, and display the same sort of avoidance body language we do when embarassed, they mourn their dead loved ones, they comfort and care for their sick and wounded, they play games, they tease, they caress, they adopt, they solve problems together and they dance and sing together. None of this is a stretch you need PETA goggles to see, a day at the Portland zoo will do the trick.

So, if one people believe human sacrifice is correct, then it is correct. On what basis can it be wrong?

If you decide to be loyal primarily to your tribe, and your tribe best prospers from the human sacrifice of members of competing tribes, it is moral. If that's not the best idea around for prospering, maybe you can make a case that your loyalty should be to your nation, and it's not moral.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. Loyalty to the planet's long term best interest might make joining Greenpeace a moral act. Loyalty to the Japanese way of life might make it an immoral act. It is just a pretense without evidence to back it up that there is some "objective" morality one may reference for a desk-check. Those of us who aren't too pursuaded by this confidence game have to struggle along trying to work out what your best choices are. Some of us call that an active conscience. Others wait around for God to finger it into their brain. Some of us are sons of Mary, and just know the answer. Some of us are sons of Martha, and actually try to work the problem. Some might think of sons of Mary as special and saved, and deserving of the fruits of the efforts of the sons of Martha; observing history, some might regard the sons of Mary as dangerously unpredictable, arbitrary and capricious moral parasites with an entirely unjustified, and not a little freightening stink of self-righteousness about them.

Morality isn't automatically binding whether it's supplied by God or nature.

Show me the morality gene. If it is from natural selection, there MUST be a morality gene. Where is it? Why haven't they found it? It seems you are taking yet another wild leap of faith with no evidence to support it.

No, their doesn't have to be a morality gene. Even at birth, you are more than the sum of your genetic heritage. What nature has given you is a chemical arsenal that provides you with chemicals that trigger responses that correspond to feelings attached by complex RNA triggers to certain external stimulus.

All nature had to supply you with was feelings, is up to individuals whether they are enveloped by them or not--such as the sentimental tendencies that arise in you when you caress a newborn, or feel the warmth coming from your tribe when you've brought home a deer during a famine. All nature can give you is tendencies, it does not force any given individual to realize them.

You didn't start out this discussion asking for proof, you started out asking (challenging, actually) for a viable explanation different than God. I can't prove it, and neither can you disprove it. But I submit that your challenge has been answered adequately.

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.