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 ... 1,121-1,1401,141-1,1601,161-1,180 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. -linked article-

That of course is not the definition of evolution. The above is a cowardly mistatement of it. You cannot create new genetic information by just shuffling genetic information around. A bacteria has some 600 genes and some one million base pairs of DNA, a human has some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion base pairs of DNA. You cannot get from a bacteria to a human (as evolution asserts) by just shuffling around the genes of a bacteria and you know it and everybody knows it.

1,141 posted on 12/27/2002 6:56:19 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1120 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
This remains an excellent question. I would be interested in seeing it answered.

It was answered and if you had bothered to click on the 'replies' button you would have found the answer, but then you did not really want to hear my response did you? Here it is:

Tell you what: I'll start work on that, as soon as you show me the proof that naturalistic abiogenesis could only have occurred by the spontaneous intantaneous transmutation of junkyard piles of misc. amino acids into working prokariotes, as you and Behe insist must be the case.

Nope, me and Behe say that God made life. It is the atheists and materialists that say that junkyard piles of amino acids (which BTW are not found in nature except in living things as part of the process of protein formation) randomly arranged themselves into DNA or RNA chains of some half a million bases long (even though amino acids are the product of RNA not the material from which it is made). It is to such ridiculous extent that atheists and materialists try to go in order to deny God his due.
1001 posted on 12/23/2002 8:54 PM PST by gore3000

Let me add this note to the response above. It is the Intelligent Design community that has been telling evolutionists that you a hurricane going through a junkyard will never make a Boeing 747. It is proof of the total bankrupcy (and dishonesty) of evolution and evolutionists that they are adopting this as their argument against intelligent design. As I keep saying, evolution dead, all that is left is to bury it.

1,142 posted on 12/27/2002 7:05:38 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1122 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
I will not debate your silliness anymore until you answer one question


How old is the Earth?

All you have to do is answer it I still state your ashamed of your God if you don't answer.
1,143 posted on 12/27/2002 7:05:57 PM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1137 | View Replies]

To: All
==========
Code 69 alert
==========
1,144 posted on 12/27/2002 7:08:57 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1141 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
All you have to do is answer it I still state your ashamed of your God if you don't answer.

I do not debate religion with atheists. Evolutionists claim that evolution is science, but whenever I try to discuss science with them they try to turn the discussion into a religious one. Sorry, as I said before, I will not do that. Evolution is not science and your insults and your attempt at diverting the discussion to religion show quite well that it is not.

1,145 posted on 12/27/2002 7:46:52 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1143 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Actually you have yet to divorce religion from evolution and bring it up all the time. So it is you not I that divorce the two. I always discuss evolution without religion and in fact have slammed your arguements over and over.
I only started insulting you when you called me a liar. I proved in several posts that you lied (you bear false witness to shield your Lord from the Truth). Why can't you answer My question. Or should I just say I don't debate evolution with people without a clue how science works or creationists they are essential the same thing. You talk about me insulting you while your far more guilty.


Answer the question you are ashamed of your beliefs aren't you ? If you weren't ashamed you would answer.


I have answered every question you asked until I asked you something and you refuse to respond so until you respond I'll just keep asking and making a fool out of you. At least the other creationists are honest in their ignorance you Lie through your teeth and refuse to answer even a basic question.


How old is the Earth? It isn't a religious question I am asking why are you so reluctant to answer it is a very scientific question in fact. Don't pretend its a religious question.


I am not debating religion I'm just asking a simple scientific question so answer it. How old is the Earth?
1,146 posted on 12/27/2002 9:01:35 PM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1145 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Hey, all I did was back up what you challenged me to.

Which Patrick Henry ably challenged for me in Post 1055. These discoverers, inventors, and philosophers would have found the exact same thing regardless of the use of religion or God as an axiom. To say that it was essential is false.

1,147 posted on 12/27/2002 9:25:40 PM PST by B. Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
I am not ashamed of my beliefs and your constant repetition of that slime shows that you are completely defeated and cannot scientifically suport your atheistic evolution. Here is what you are trying to avoid by changing the discussion:

Gore 3000 give up and quit lying about me.

I did not lie about you, I proved you a liar. You could have used this post to show my statement to be wrong but instead you write a bunch of rhetoric and nonsense and do not answer any of the points I said had not been refuted. In the post you are responding to I said:

Correction - you wrote page after page of ATTEMPTED refutations of my posts. The reason you gave up was that you were unable to back up your claims when I challenged you to do so in Post# 988 where I challenged you to give proof of evolutionary transformations and disprove the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, you were also unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 989 to show how an egg laying animal would become a live bearing one, and you were unable to respond to my challenge in Post# 991 to show detailed proof contradicting Behe's statement in post #984 that the eye spot could not have evolved as Darwin had claimed.

Seems to me that it is I who should be saying that you are disregarding the strong proofs against evolution which have been presented to you and which you are unable to refute.

Now where did you refute those posts? They are totally unanswered. Where is the refutation to Post# 988, 989 and 991 which said:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.

991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000

1063 posted on 12/26/2002 5:40 PM PST by gore3000
[Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1044 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

1,148 posted on 12/27/2002 10:07:25 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1146 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Maybe a few of his refutations could be found in that massive jumble of blather spewn about a few days ago. Now if you could only free-up a few hours to pick through it, I am sure you would find something worth reading. Now whether it contains proof that the flagellum could have evolved "by chance" is a whole 'nother question.

1,149 posted on 12/28/2002 1:18:30 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1148 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
First of all I am not a spiritualist. This is a demeaning term for someone who is religious. I do not think my life (or anyone's is poorer) by say obeying the Ten Commandments. What is good in life that one misses out by obeying the Ten Commandments?

If I offended by saying spiritualist, I am sorry. Replace it with the "Those who are religious". But what is this about the Ten Commandments? What relevance does this have? Some (Commandments) are pretty good, some are essential in a society, a couple are meaningless (Who to worship, graven images, etc.). If a person goes through life following them, then fine... but so what? I have no problem with it. I follow most of them myself, simply because they are common sense...

1,150 posted on 12/28/2002 1:36:11 AM PST by B. Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1131 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
It's not the same thing. A rock has no specificity, no purpose. The Universe has a tremendous amount of specificity, of purpose (in addition to complexity). We ordinarily think of things which have all three - complexity, specificity and purpose as designed. Some examples would be works of art, houses, automobiles, computers, etc. We can pick them up like the rock, but we do not think it arose at random. We may know know the name of their maker or the name of their designer, but we do know as surely as we are typing to each other here, that it was not a randomly occurring thing. We know with complete certainty that there was a human mind behind it.

I can make a rock have specificity and purpose. A sharp one can be used as a tool to crack open a nut or to kill an animal for food. Some natural, randomly created things have immense beauty, just as artwork. Mountains, grand canyon, are you saying that God designed the Grand Canyon? Probably so, so this gets us nowhere. But how do you refute the rock statement now?

1,151 posted on 12/28/2002 1:41:55 AM PST by B. Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: B. Rabbit
But what is this about the Ten Commandments? What relevance does this have? Some (Commandments) are pretty good, some are essential in a society, a couple are meaningless (Who to worship, graven images, etc.). If a person goes through life following them, then fine... but so what? I have no problem with it. I follow most of them myself, simply because they are common sense...

Well the Ten Commandments is the basis of Judaism and Christianity so if you find no problem with someone following them it seems to me that the statement which I responded to that " Spiritualists not only deny their own earthly humanity, but also everything that is good in life here on earth in order to arrogantly proclaim they know more about invisible kingdoms." is just plain wrong.

1,152 posted on 12/28/2002 5:05:06 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1150 | View Replies]

To: B. Rabbit
I can make a rock have specificity and purpose. A sharp one can be used as a tool to crack open a nut or to kill an animal for food. Some natural, randomly created things have immense beauty, just as artwork. Mountains, grand canyon, are you saying that God designed the Grand Canyon? Probably so, so this gets us nowhere. But how do you refute the rock statement now?

The specificity of the rock was provided by yourself, by selecting amongst the many rocks one of the proper size for the purpose. As to art, art is more than beauty. There is design to art, there is no design to the Grand Canyon in the same sense. It did not arise to impress those looking at it. A painting is designed to convey a thought, a feeling, the Grand Canyon while it may awe those who look at it was not designed to provide the view but just to get water from one place to another.

1,153 posted on 12/28/2002 5:13:27 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1151 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Also unlike evolutionists, we think for ourselves, we are not mind numbed robots such as Patrick who find it necessary to deny the most obvious facts in order to support their mind numbed robot friends.

1136 posted on 12/27/2002 6:42 PM PST by gore3000

Liberal LEFT lunatic fringe way out there!

1,154 posted on 12/28/2002 5:20:27 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1136 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Answer the question How old is the Earth?


The entire debate hinges on this question you can't answer the question because hen you do you arguments become mute. In fact once you answer the question I'll again g over all your silliness and refute the lot again like I have in the past simply answer the question How old is the Earth? What the matter does this question bother you does nswering it make you nervous? Once you have answewred this question I'll answer anything you want.


For the people in the peanut gallery his refusal to answer this question proves my point that he has no scientific knoiwledge to add to this debate.


This is for the peanut gallery not you Gore3000 I though tI would answer a few questions for them.

gore 3000 wrote"to show how an egg laying animal would become a live bearing one, " This is a simple decrease in egg shell thickness in an animal that already was giving live birth. I don't even understand why evolutionists use this example as it is so easy to dismiss and I have done it before. Step one the Retile/Mammal gives birth to young where the egg shell breaks before birth and the young are born live. This happens in many reptils on Earth even to this day. Step two the egg shell in each successive generation becomes thinner and thinner as it becomes thinner the original blood vessels in the uterus that fed the egg before it hardens remain attached (these generally detach before the egg is laid. Over time the shell is becomes so thin that it no longer even exists and the cellular bundle (blood vessels etc) attached to the fetus becomes the main source of nutrition for the fetus.

Now this lack of a egg creates a new problem for mammals that reptiles don't have. Without the time in the egg mammals are less physically delevoped at birth so need more care by its parent. In fact live birth is almost easier to explain than the original rise of the eggs itself. Now this was very simple refutation and does not include modern evolutinary idea such as genetic drift fromspecies to species but i don't expect everyone to understand this sort of genetic theory.





1,155 posted on 12/28/2002 6:31:07 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1148 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
gore 3000 wrote "How either of you do not know that the genome is 3 billion DNA base pairs long and claim that you are evolutionists because it is science and not see that 30,000,000 is 1% of 3 billion is unimaginable. You both have shown yourselves to be totally ignorant. "

I thought I would address this to the peanut gallery so no one would think gore3000 had a point. He is wrong of course the 1% difference in Chimps has nothing what so ever to do with the number of Base pair difference between Man and Chimps this is why he is making up numbers. Lets look at some Basic science.


There are 6 billion people on Earth gore3000 wrote "30,000,000 is 1% of 3 billion is unimaginable."
as there are 6 billion people that means each of these people unless they are twins or clones has a unique DNA signature. That means each of the 6 billion have a different set of base pairs. Now does this come up to 30 million differences not quite but close, from one random human to another there is be a difference of several million base pairs without these difference there could be no human diversity. Gore3000 would like you to forget that DNA can differentiate in anyway. DNA isn't a solid block that is the same in all creatures that are the same every creature except for twins or clones have unique DNA.


Now why are we different to Chimps the 1 % is in the Chromosomes. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes and Humans have 23 this small difference is what makes us a separate species. Now while DNA makes up a chromosome the loss of a chromosomes does noit always indicate the death or lack of viability in a creature. In fact there are millions of humans living among us with chromosomal deficiencies or extra ones while they are often noticiably retarded these replication failures can be seen as evolution in action as they are disimilar enough from other Humans that technically they would form a separate species. Lets take for example Downs syndrome. In Down's Syndrome the child has an extra of the 21st chromosome under a microscope you may think that blood from a Down's patient was that of a chimp while it isn't the lesson I ant people to learn is that chromosomal abnormalities dont automatically cause death in the organism. Soem where down the line in Human evolution their was achromosomal accident where one of the chromosomal pairs united into one. When all pairs of Human and chimp chromosomes are lined up they match with humans having one some extar informationm in one chromosome that matches two separate ones in chimps.
Oh BTW if gore3000 is looking at this How old is The Earth?

1,156 posted on 12/28/2002 6:57:10 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1155 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
It was answered and if you had bothered to click on the 'replies' button you would have found the answer, but then you did not really want to hear my response did you?

I read your response. It had nothing to do with the question asked, and betrayed instead a fundamental misunderstanding of the question.

The claim by you and Behe that God made life is irrelevant. The important point is that both you and he reject naturalistic abiogenisis because of the impossibility of "amino acids randomly arranged themselves into DNA or RNA chains of some half a million bases long" in one fell swoop.

To restate donh's question: What evidence do you and Behe have that insists that life must have jumped from zero to fully formed cell in a single step?

1,157 posted on 12/28/2002 8:38:27 AM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1142 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
There is design to art, there is no design to the Grand Canyon in the same sense. It did not arise to impress those looking at it. A painting is designed to convey a thought, a feeling, the Grand Canyon while it may awe those who look at it was not designed to provide the view but just to get water from one place to another.

You're making yourself very suspect in my eyes. Backtracking to your original argument about the universe being like a work of art and melding it to the above response, you are saying that the universe is designed to convey a thought or feeling and to impress those looking at it? This is what you're saying? Absurd. You see order in the universe, and so do I. But you take it to the extreme and say that there must be a designer. This is a irrational jump in reasoning. The universe HAS to be a certain way. It's this way. To immediately make a jump to creator is the easy thing to do, I admit, but I want proof. Hard evidence just like you demand from evolutionists. Show me the money, gore3000. Show me the evidence which you demand from me which makes your theory so obviously correct in your eyes.

1,158 posted on 12/28/2002 9:01:57 AM PST by B. Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1153 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
As I am not very well read on this subject, thanks for the clarification on this subject. You have a lot of knowledge...

Also, if I may:

gore3000, if you are reading this, How old is the Earth? I really just want to know what you think, and you won't answer Sentis.
1,159 posted on 12/28/2002 9:08:13 AM PST by B. Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1156 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Well the Ten Commandments is the basis of Judaism and Christianity so if you find no problem with someone following them it seems to me that the statement which I responded to that " Spiritualists not only deny their own earthly humanity, but also everything that is good in life here on earth in order to arrogantly proclaim they know more about invisible kingdoms." is just plain wrong.

You are trying to make me look like I am bashing religion. I made the that quoted statement above in response to this statement you made:

Materialists not only deny their own humanity but also everything that is good in life in order to arrogantly proclaim themselves free from a superior being.

AND I made the disclaimer that I am not attacking religion, I am simply taking the opposite viewpoint that you are taking to show the absurdity. YOU MADE the attack on materialism, but that doesn't matter. Only fundamentalist religious types have the right to be angry when they're theories are attacked. Isn't that right gore?

I was trying to be civil. I even apologized for saying "spiritualist" if it offended you. But you are obviously delusional. So now I must ask just one question...HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

1,160 posted on 12/28/2002 9:17:46 AM PST by B. Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1152 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,121-1,1401,141-1,1601,161-1,180 ... 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