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."

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.

It is RNA, reading the DNA code that makes amino acids. Amino acids are only the constituent parts of proteins. Neither amino acids nor proteins make either DNA or RNA.

The part about amino acids forming DNA is in quotes for a good reason. Because I was quoting YOU. Now you say that amino acids do NOT make DNA. One of your statements is incorrect. Which one?

While I wait for you to dodge and evade that one, I'll deal with the rest of your non-answer.

Pasteur: Proved only the non-spontaneous generation of fully formed cells.

Smallest living cell, 1 million base pair example: Based on fully formed cells.

Chicken and egg "problem": concerns fully formed cells.

Evasion, avoidance, (deliberate?) misunderstanding.

So fire up those neurons, here we go again: What evidence do you have that insists that life must have jumped from zero to fully formed cell in a single step?

The part about amino acids forming DNA is in quotes for a good reason. Because I was quoting YOU.

Lying as usual. It is always the morons of evolution that make that ridiculoust statement. The statement I made, back in post#1001 was as follows:

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

Seems that since you and your friends cannot deny the truth you are now lying about what I said. You folk are totally despicable.

The fact that you consider the theory of evolution to have the same validity as the theory of universal gravitation shows that you must have deemed yourself "physicist" rather than acquiring the title from an institution of higher learning. Keep calling yourself "physicist." While the rest of us won't believe it, and you won't come any closer to realizing the title, you might at least raise your self-esteem.

It so happens that I have been to Physicist's house and have seen his degrees with my own eyes. I have also been to his office and lab at his university.

I completely agree with longshadow. You owe Physicist a BIG PUBLIC apology!

Also note that the differences between humans are so small and so inconsequential such as eye color, hair color, skin color, etc. that they have no relevance to anything meaningful (except to racists which evolutionists certainly are).

Again, you are a hypocrite. You get so strung up on any attack made upon you yet you have the audacity to say that all evolutionists are racists.

As to other responses you have had to me, I follow your argument and respond with my opinions. You claim that I "need a course in reading comprehension". This is something you often do. You say (paraphrasing)"and anybody who goes back and reads through our conversation would know that you are an idiot, and I am a genius." You know full well that nobody is going to go through and read all of that, so you think you win.

This is a summary on what exchanged between us:

1. You said that the universe has too many variable set in just the right way for the conditions on earth to sustain life. Therefore, there must be a creator.

2. I said that arguing about the improbability of something occurring after the fact is moot. I asked you to pick up a rock, and after you did I was amazed at how you picked up that one rock. Out of all the rocks in the world, you picked up that one rock. It is a improbability of astronomical proportions. But what good is that? I am arguing about the improbability of random events after the fact. It does us no good.

3. Then you said that it is different because a rock is just a rock, and has no purpose or specificity.

4. I said that I can make a rock have purpose and specificity. A sharp one can help me crack a nut or kill an animal.

5. Then you bring in a statment about the difference between artwork and rocks. How artwork is about invoking a feeling and impressing somebody. Now remember gore, this whole argument is about debating the improbability of something (rocks or universes) after the fact. So I make the connection that you are saying that the universe (like a piece of art) is not random and has been designed to invoke a feeling or impress somebody.

Read back through it if you must, this is quite obvious. I am not going to let you say "you need a reading comprehension course" without making you own up to your lies here.

Now I could be wrong, I am nothing but a dumb, racist evolutionist.

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

1. Fine. Good point. I cannot disprove God (nor do I normally feel any reason to). But neither can you disprove the Magic Potato Fairies that actually rule the Earth. They are invisible and they created man so man could grow more potatoes, which makes Potato Fairies very happy. I make a pilgramage twice a year to Idaho, where everyone must go if they want to become immortal. I wrote it all down in a book, so it must be true. Disprove it.

2. Abiogenesis has not been scientifically disproven. This is a lie. Much like nobody can disprove God and Potato Fairies, nobody has "disproven" abiogenesis. Show me where. Any law that you think you know about it was about the impossibility of maggots "appearing" on a piece of old meat. It had nothing to do with the initial generation of life.

3. The Universe has been shown to be intelligently designed? How can you say this stuff with a straight face?

These discoverers, inventors, and philosophers would have found the exact same thing regardless of the use of religion or God as an axiom.-me

I'll challenge you. Back this up.

I admit, I made a claim that I cannot back up. However, I find it hard to believe, as I am sure you do as well, that Western culture would never have discovered America (Columbus), that nobody would have theorized about gravity (Newton), etc. etc, without using God as an axiom for their pursuits. Good point though, I cannot back up what I said...

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? That question has been continuously asked of g3k since post 1081, and in response we get nothing but tap-dancing. Observe this post, truly a classic. One howler after another:

Actually it is atheits [sic] that cannot disprove God by scientific means:¹ abiogenesis has been proven scientifically impossible,² the Universe has been shown to be intelligently designed,³ the development of a human from conception to birth is not random but a program which cannot be stochastically changed.⁴ It is you and your fellow atheists that have to disprove God⁵ and you have nothing but lame rhetoric to do it with.
1241 posted on 12/28/2002 11:49 PM EST by gore3000

Footnotes:
1. That was in response to a point I made to Tribune7, about whether the "God hypothesis" was essential to scientific work, and I said that Trib7 had the burden of proof. He does; and g3k doesn't understand this.
2. This nonsense keeps getting repeated even after I've posted links to the Pasteur Institute in Paris, showing that ol' Louis Pasteur was merely working on the problem of food spoilation, and he showed that food had to be exposed to airborne bacteria in order to develop mold. Certain cretaionists have blown this into a fantasy proof of one of their fantasy dogmas.
3. Nonsense.
4. Who said it was random?
5. Another clear demonstration of ignorance regarding the burden of proof. And a "wildly elliptical" assumption that I'm an atheist.

Now then, that was an amusing post to deal with. But it's all quite beside the point. Do not be distracted. Don't be tempted into any flame wars which will provide an excuse to get this thread pulled. Permit no diversions! Stay the course! We want an answer: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Gravity is a proven fact, and not just on earth. We found Pluto because we saw the effects of its gravity, we were able to land on the moon thanks to gravity. Your denying that gravity even exists shows your total disregard for both science and honest discussion.-me-

Really? Can you explain the difference between pure Newtonian physics and General Relativity? Why do you think its called Gravitational Theory?

For a supposed astronomer you do not even know your terms. It is called the LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION it is far more than a theory. As I told physicist, by denying something which you know to be true you are being dishonest. If you are a radio astronomer you know that gravity has been observed. If you do not know it, then you are not a radio astronomer, so either way you are being dishonest.

You and your friends are trying to create confusion in order to try to dismiss my posts as nonsense. Specifically that gravity has been observed and evolution never has been observed. I ask all those who do not believe that gravity has been observed or do not believe that it is observable to go on top of a 20 story building and jump. This will have two benefits: one it will prove to you that there are indeed universal scientific laws, and two, it will rid the world of a few people lacking in common sense (and perhaps win you a posthmous Darwin Award!). Gravity is observed everyday by everyone. Evolution has NEVER been observed.

BTW - it is interesting that evolutionists when shown that some scientific statement is true, try to challenge the truth of a scientific theory instead of prove their own evolutionary theory. It shows clearly to me that evolutionists are quite aware that evolution is not a fact, but just rhetorical nonsense.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? That question has been continuously asked of g3k since post 1081,

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

Another clear demonstration of ignorance regarding the burden of proof. And a "wildly elliptical" assumption that I'm an atheist.

You certainly are an atheist. For one thing your favorite philosophy is Objectivism which denies God. In addition your posts here are ample proof of your atheism (as well as of your dishonesty). In fact, this attack on me, in which you do not even have the honesty to address it to me, shows your utter dishonesty. Any time you wish to discuss whether you are an atheist or not, just let me know. We have done it already so we both know what the result will be so I am sure that you will decline to discuss it.

Abiogenesis has not been scientifically disproven. This is a lie. Much like nobody can disprove God and Potato Fairies, nobody has "disproven" abiogenesis. Show me where. Any law that you think you know about it was about the impossibility of maggots "appearing" on a piece of old meat. It had nothing to do with the initial generation of life.

Abiogenesis has certainly been scientifically disproven and the disproof has only mounted since the time of Pasteur. Read the following and let me see even a hypothesis for life arising from non-life which accounts for the scientifically known facts detailed below:

There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof 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.

Not going to go into it, but you are deliberately taking what they are saying and twisting it around. Nobody is doubting that we could not exist without gravity.

In that case then gravity is observed on a daily basis. Gravity is a fact of life and it is undeniable. Not so for evolution which has never been observed. Your friends are trying to foment skepticism and imply that there is nothing scientifically true. There are many things which are indeed scientifically true and are observed to be true all the time. Evolution, the transformaton of one species into another by totally materialistic means, has never been observed. It is therefore pseudo-science, not science.

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.