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."
Actually it is atheits that cannot disprove God by scientific means: abiogenesis has been proven scientifically impossible, the Universe has been shown to be intelligently designed, the development of a human from conception to birth is not random but a program which cannot be stochastically changed. It is you and your fellow atheists that have to disprove God and you have nothing but lame rhetoric to do it with.
It has not been answered because it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is scientifically true or not. However the following posts are relevant and have gone totally unrefuted. This proves your atheistic religion (aka evolution) to be totally false and totally unscienitific:
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
When are the lamers of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991
When are you, the #1 lamer of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991
The #1 lamer of evolution continues to spam the thread. As I have told you already Vade, you need to take your meds and have a long rest.
When are you going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991
I see you have not taken your meds yet and continue to spam the thread.
When are you, the #1 lamer of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991
Continuing to spam the thread. Seems that is all you do on these threads Patrick. When are you and your fellow lamers of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991
Of course it is not directed at anyone but me. You are even too dishonest to address your posts to the person you are attacking.
When are you and your fellow lamers of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991
You claim to be a physicist and you ask that quesition? It is totally dishonest to ask a question for which you know the answer so you are either not a physicist or you are attacking someone for making a statement you know to be true. Either way you are showing your dishonesty.
You really need to stop lying and insulting people. Gravity is a scientific fact, evolution is not. Gravity can be observed by anyone, evolution has never been observed.
Aaah, semantics again! It is the same color as electricity which has been observed also. However, if you think gravity is not true, lets both of us go on top of a 20 story building. If you fall up, I will agree with you that gravity is false.
Okay, then you and Dr. Stochastic go up together on a 20 story building and see if you fall up. This is your great chance to prove me wrong, let's see you guys do it. Heck it's sure better than making fools of yourselves denying what is incontrovertibly true.
Yup, the evolutionists always grow silent when they know they have lost the discussion. Guess you did not get your e-mail from Patrick telling you not to bump this thread.
Perhaps if the moon were a lot closer, as it once was, we would be light enough to fly. At least according to the theories of one former poster.
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.