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."

[F16Fighter]

Yeah yeah -- we know birds' feathers change color; beak shapes change, and legs disappear and fins emerge. But how about the juice stuff science can't explain? How does science "invent" a mind or soul? Thoughts and idea? While we're at it, how does science explain psychic phenomenon, remote viewing,and telekinesis?

Is there indeed another world and dimension -- the spirit world?

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! Hugs!!!

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

"They will still be saying it 100 years from now."

Your observation points up the saddest aspect of this zealous pursuit, which at best is a miss direction of the gifts of life and talents given these scientists by God, and at worst is fueled by a need to challege the authority of God.

I was raised by one of these zealots, and it is a real shame that people with so much ability to to something truly useful to society instead throw their lives away trying to prove a negative.

[gore3000]

Ok, let's quit looking for the answers through science

No, let's start doing real science and let's start looking at what makes life tick instead of digging up stupid bones which tell us nothing. Let's start doing real science and look at how organisms really work instead of going around counting bits of DNA and calling them homologous which tells us absolutely nothing. Let's start doing real science and let's look for the causes of things instead of asserting that random chance is the source of differences in species. If one wants to learn how life works one has to look at the whole organism not take it apart piece by piece.

[F16Fighter]

"What's the scientific proof of evolution? How does a species transform itself into another species? What is exactly the theory of evolution Patrick?"

And yet public schools are insulted when Flintstone Science Theories of evolution, without one single iota of proof aren't treated as the gospel truth.

[Tribune7]

You're not even close :-)

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle placed the odds of unguided abiogenesis at 10^40000 to 1. (That's 40,000 zeros.)

This means it is an exponentially greater act of faith to reject a creator than to believe in one.

[AndrewC]

judge for yourself.

If the picture were so simple, men and women should have scored the same. For instance,---

A strong, positive relationship exists between number of correctly answered questions and level of formal education, number of science and mathematics courses completed, and attentiveness to S&T. For example, those who did not complete high school answered an average of 50 percent of the questions correctly compared with scores of 63 percent for high school graduates, 77 percent for college graduates, and 80 percent for those who earned graduate or professional degrees. (See appendix table 7-9.)

In addition, only 22 percent of respondents were able to define molecule, and 45 percent gave an acceptable definition for DNA.[10] Although the percentage of correct responses to these questions was considerably lower than that for most of the short-answer questions, it is noteworthy that the percentage of correct responses increased in the late 1990s.

A higher percentage of men than women answered every question but three correctly. The gender gap was 20 or more points for four questions:

• Lasers work by focusing sound waves (61 percent of men compared with 30 percent of women).
  
  
• Light travels faster than sound (89 percent of men compared with 65 percent of women).
  
  
• Earth takes one year to go around the Sun (66 percent of men compared with 42 percent of women).
  
  
• Earth goes around the Sun and not vice versa (86 percent of men compared with 66 percent of women).

More women than men answered the following questions correctly:

• The father's gene decides whether the baby is a boy or a girl (72 percent of women compared with 58 percent of men).
  
  
• Antibiotics do not kill viruses (55 percent of women compared with 46 percent of men).

For the first time, a majority of all survey respondents answered the antibiotic question correctly (although a majority of men missed it). The growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics has received widespread media coverage during the past few years. In identifying the main cause of the problem, the overprescribing of antibiotics, it is almost always mentioned that antibiotics are ineffective in killing viruses. In addition, parents of young children, especially those prone to ear infections, have been warned by their pediatricians about this problem. Although the message still has not reached a large segment of the population, the percentage of those answering correctly has been rising, from 40 percent in 1995 to 51 percent in 2001.

During most of the 20th century, probably the most contentious issue in science teaching has been whether evolution is taught or not taught in U.S. public school classrooms. The latest major dispute in this long-running battle was the Kansas State Board of Education's 1999 decision to delete evolution from the state's science standards. This event received widespread coverage in the press and sparked an outcry in the science community.[11] In addition, most of the public was not happy with the decision; 60 percent of Americans were opposed to the school board's action.[12] Moreover, most Kansans also felt the same way.[13] Thus, it was not too surprising when two board members who had voted for the change were defeated in the next election by candidates who supported the teaching of evolution. Subsequently, the reconstituted Kansas School Board reversed the decision.

The attention received by the Kansas controversy may be responsible for a change in response to the "evolution" question. For the first time, a majority of survey respondents answered true to the statement "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," representing a major change in response to this question[14] and bringing the United States more in line with other industrialized countries in response to this question (Gendall, Smith, and Russell 1995).

Gallup polls taken during the past 20 years consistently show a plurality (45 percent in February 2001) of Americans agreeing with the statement: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" (Brooks 2001).

In addition, two-thirds of those surveyed (68 percent) favor teaching this belief (known as creationism) along with evolution in public schools, although 29 percent are opposed. However, 55 percent are opposed to teaching creationism instead of evolution (Gallup News Service 2000).

A study conducted for the People for the American Way Foundation took a closer look at the question of teaching evolution and found an overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) agreeing that it should be taught in the classroom. However, there is also strong support for teaching creationism. A detailed breakdown of the survey findings shows a wide range of opinion on the issue:

• 20 percent favor teaching only evolution and nothing else in public schools;
  
  
• 17 percent want only evolution taught in science classes but say that religious explanations can be discussed in other classes;
  
  
• 29 percent do not have a problem with creationism being discussed in science classes but believe it should be discussed as a "belief," not a scientific theory;
  
  
• 13 percent believe that both evolution and creationism should be taught as scientific theories in science class;
  
  
• 16 percent want no mention of evolution at all;
  
  
• 4 percent are in favor of teaching both evolution and creationism but are unsure about how to do it; and
  
  
• 1 percent have no opinion (People for American Way Foundation 2000).

Understanding the Scientific Process

The NSF survey also includes questions intended to determine how well the public understands the scientific process. Respondents are asked to explain what it means to study something scientifically.[15] In addition, respondents are asked questions pertaining to the experimental evaluation of a drug and about probability.[16]In 2001, 33 percent of respondents provided good explanations of what it means to study something scientifically.[17] A large minority (43 percent) answered the experiment questions correctly, including the question(s) that focused on the use of control groups. A majority (57 percent) answered the four probability questions correctly. (See appendix table 7-11.)

A combination of each survey participant's responses to the three items is used to estimate his or her overall level of understanding of the scientific process. To be classified as "understanding the scientific process," a respondent must answer all the probability questions correctly and either provide a "theory testing" response to the question about what it means to study something scientifically or provide a correct response to the open-ended question by explaining why it is better to test a drug using a control group. In 2001, 30 percent of respondents met these criteria. (See footnote 10, figure 7-5 , and appendix table 7-11.)

I find it interesting that education beyond a simple college degree only provided a 3 percent gain in "knowledge". But what is truly astounding to me is something in these numbers from the report.

 

  

  
 
  
  

  
1988
  
  

  
1990
  
  

  
1992
  
  

  
1995
  
  

  
1997
  
  

  
1999
  
  

  
2001
  
 
 

  

  
All
  adults 
  
  

  
2,041
  
  

  
2,033
  
  

  
1,004
  
  

  
2,006
  
  

  
2,000
  
  

  
1,882
  
  

  
1,574
  
 
 

  

  
Male 
  
  

  
958
  
  

  
964
  
  

  
486
  
  

  
953
  
  

  
930
  
  

  
900
  
  

  
751
  
 
 

  

  
Female 
  
  

  
1,084
  
  

  
1,070
  
  

  
533
  
  

  
1,053
  
  

  
1,070
  
  

  
982
  
  

  
823
  
 
 

  

  
Less than
  high school graduate 
  
  

  
530
  
  

  
495
  
  

  
215
  
  

  
418
  
  

  
420
  
  

  
403
  
  

  
116
  
 
 

  

  
High
  school graduate 
  
  

  
1,158
  
  

  
1,202
  
  

  
623
  
  

  
1,196
  
  

  
1,188
  
  

  
1,111
  
  

  
834
  
 
 

  

  
Baccalaureate
  and higher 
  
  

  
353
  
  

  
336
  
  

  
203
  
  

  
392
  
  

  
392
  
  

  
368
  
  

  
614
  
 
 

  

  
Attentive
  public to science and technology 
  
  

  
233
  
  

  
229
  
  

  
105
  
  

  
195
  
  

  
288
  
  

  
216
  
  

  
195
  
 

[gore3000]

"They will still be saying it 100 years from now." -me-

Your observation points up the saddest aspect of this zealous pursuit,

No, it does not. My response explained why amino acid experiments will NEVER produce life. They will not because they have it backwards as I said. The CENTRAL DOGMA of biology is DNA codes for RNA, RNA builds amino acids and through certain intervening processes such as cutting and pasting it produces proteins. As you can see from that, the Miller-Urey pseudo-scientists have it completely backwards. When you wish to learn a little biology instead of atheist fairy tales you will learn the truth.

[Alamo-Girl]

Talking about looking for answers in science, y'all might find this quote interesting, from The Physics of Symbols: Bridging the Epistemic Cut

Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research. In the 1970s, a prominent molecular geneticist asked me, "Why do we need theory when we have all the facts?" At the time I dismissed the question as silly, as most physicists would. However, it is not as silly as the converse question, Why do we need facts when we have all the theories? These are actually interesting philosophical questions that show why trying to relate biology to physics is seldom of interest to biologists, even though it is of great interest to physicists. Questioning the importance of theory sounds eccentric to physicists for whom general theories is what physics is all about. Consequently, physicists, like the skeptics I mentioned above, are concerned when they learn facts of life that their theories do not appear capable of addressing. On the other hand, biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts.

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

Thanks again.

As someone who has been lurker/poster on the forum for a few years now, I'd like to take this opportunity to say that YOU BLOW ME AWAY!

[gore3000]

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle placed the odds of unguided abiogenesis at 10^40000 to 1. (That's 40,000 zeros.)

I think he underestimated the odds. They are much greater than even that. There is much proof against it and the odds are impossible. That is why no serious scientist can even propose a materialistic theory of abiogenesis that fits the known scientific facts. First proof of all is Pasteur's that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).

The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

[Aric2000]

When you wish to learn a little biology instead of atheist fairy tales you will learn the truth.

I would have stated it this way.

When you learn a little biology instead of Religious fairy tales, then you will KNOW the truth

But that's right, you are a religious fanatic, so facts are not facts, and the earth is flat, and gravity does not exist, and the theory of electronics is just a theory, even though we have computers to prove it and the theory of gravity is just theory, even though we use it to track trajectories and orbits and other things, and the theory of light is just a theory, even though we have lasers etc, and of course the theory of evolution is just a theory even though we have numerous fossils, numbering in the millions, even though bacteria have become immune to antibiotics, when they should not be able to if the theory of evolution is just a theory, etc etc ad nauseum.

Poor Gore3000, so fanatical that facts are myths and myths are facts. sounds like a book I once read.

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers! Thank you oh so very much for the kudos (blushing...) I'm glad the information is helpful to you!

[F16Fighter]

You're not even close :-)

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle placed the odds of unguided abiogenesis at 10^40000 to 1. (That's 40,000 zeros.)

This means it is an exponentially greater act of faith to reject a creator than to believe in one.

To both you and I, Creationism is the only logical and obvious explaination for life -- when the heart hardens, nothing appears obvious...

Hey -- I tacked on a few extra zeros at the end, then I got too tired :-)

The evolutionist realizes his only chance at discrediting God's Creationism is by "proving" evolutionism. Ain't never happenin'.

[gore3000]

biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts.

As Sgt. Friday used to say 'just the facts ma'm'!

[intolerancewillNOTbetolerated]

"When you wish to learn a little biology instead of atheist fairy tales you will learn the truth."

Although I feel no need to learn biology to the extent necessary to refute those so impressed with their "knowledge" in the the manner you so capably do, (and I'm greateful for your knowledge and time sharing it here), I also am not interested in "atheist fairy tales."

I repeat my opinion, which I am entitled to despite my being biologically challenged, that the saddest part of so many talented people feverishly seeking to prove evolution is that their talents could be much better used.

[gore3000]

In response, the evolutionists and metaphysical naturalists would write both off to the anthropic principle.

While naturalists and evolutionists claim themselves to be scientists, they hold on to the anthropic principle for dear life. The anthropic principle which basically says that the Universe exists because it exists is the exact opposite of science. Science is about 'how' and 'why', it is about causes and effects. The anthropic principle just says that existence is proof of materialism when of course it proves no such thing. All it proves is that they have no rational explanation for their statements.

[F16Fighter]

"But that's right, you are a religious fanatic, so facts are not facts..."

Do take us through your step-by- step fantasy from the very moment that random bolt of lightning crashed into that randomly created droplet of water, creating....what exactly??

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! Indeed, it does remind me of Sgt. Friday.

I'm very glad that Physicists, Mathematicians and Information Theorists have broached Molecular Biology. We are sure to benefit from the likes of Luis Rocha!

[Alamo-Girl]

All it [anthropic principle] proves is that they have no rational explanation for their statements.

That pretty much sums it up. One of the big complaints about intelligent design theory is that by saying "God did it" research comes to a halt - so instead, when a fact which points to design is found, it is placed in the "anthropic principle" bucket and research comes to a halt. Ironic.

Ian's Cosmic Matters has an interesting collection of these in layspeak.