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."
It means, a animal reproduced another animal that was like it's parents.
Lions reproduced lions, Tigers - tigers, apes - apes, monkeys - monkeys, horses - horses, zebras - zebras, caterpillars - caterpillars, spiders -spiders, there was no change in any species from one "kind" to another "kind" of species. There were many "adaptations" that occurred "intra-species" but never to the point of evolving into a new species.
Um, that it's entirely unsubstantiated? You want it spoon-fed to you? I'll let Answers in Genesis do it for me:
No, it shows the flimsy ground your truth is based on. If "truth" can be compromised with another "truth" that changes the "previous truth", then there no truth in your "theory". But if you the "truth" and you know it's the "truth", then there is no need to "revamp" the truth. Truth doesn't need, corrections, BUT THEORIES DO!
Are, for example, sheep and goats separate species or not?
I did not realize the function of science was to claim a representation of truth. I always felt that was the realm of philosophers and moralists. A claim of truth by a scientist would imply perfect understanding.
To follow Roger Penrose, evolution is a useful theory without which "nothing in biology makes sense." Science is generally accepted as a study to explain observed phenomenon, or predict some phenomena. Those phenomena may be a result of intelligent design, and explained through stochastic processes. For all the scientist knows, that was the intent of the designer.
But there is a lesson in the dispute on this thread. Science does not exist in a vacuum.
If one accepts that the "sexist" Francis Bacon killed "Mother Nature", then is it reasonalbe to expect Darwin and biological evolution will deliver the divine fatal blow?
You would love to believe that wouldn't you. No, I'm saying that When you are face to face with your "Creator" He will explain everything to you, then you will understand. That's all.
You evil-lutionist never answer the questions. You just come out with your "quicky" retorts, and think everbody will be on your side........WRONG!!!
Now try and answer the question. Why did any animal make all the parts of the eye before it could be used for seeing? If you evolve tissue that has no function until the other tissues that just accidently happen to compliment the previous tissue for millions of years? Is that evolution? I'd say it was carrying useless tissue for millions of years. The same goes for the "evolution" of feathers on wings. Since it didn't become feathers instantaneously, it could not function as a method of lifting an animal to fly. It was justing growing and hanging around for millions of years until it evolved into the feathers that made flight possible. In the mean time, the limbs that were supposedly changing from arms to wings became useless for grasping prey or food. So how did it survive for millions of years until it's beak and feathers evolved?.
Answer.....the......question!!!!!!
You would love to believe that wouldn't you. No, I'm saying that When you are face to face with your "Creator" He will explain everything to you, then you will understand. That's all.
If he's lucky, having the apple in his mouth might keep him from saying anything stupid while that's going on...
That's like saying our Constitution condones slavery and of course it did. But condone does not mean to encourage or establish. A better way of looking at it is that both documents recognize slavery which had been an established institution, this is especially true of the New Testament.
Do a test. Ask yourself why you think slavery is wrong.
Slavery was ended via Christian activist mostly in this country and in England.
Ok, here's just a few verses (flat earth with 4 corners, resting on pillars like a tabletop, all in the center of the universe).
1st Samuel:Note: obviously, if the earth doesn't move, and we see everything in the heavens moving around us whenever we look into the night sky, then we are in the center of the universe.
2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.2nd Samuel:
22:8 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth.
22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.Isaiah:
11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.Ecclesiastes:
1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [An orbit around the earth.]Joshua:
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.1st Chronicles:
16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.Psalms:
93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.Proverbs:
8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
If you knew that my answer had already been given then why did you ask for it in the post I responded to:
Post #1307 is waiting for an answer.
1584 posted on 12/30/2002 8:04 PM PST by Condorman
Looks more like the usual evolutionist lying in order to smear an opponent. As to the rest of your statements:
Pasteur: Proved only the non-spontaneous generation of fully formed cells.
No, he proved that spontaneous generation did not occur.
Smallest living cell, 1 million base pair example: Based on fully formed cells.
I know, I was being kind to atheists in using only a quarter of the smallest cell known. Some scientists think perhaps a cell of half million bases could sustain life, I halved it again. So yes, as far as we know abiogenesis is far more impossible that stated in my post.
Chicken and egg "problem": concerns fully formed cells.
...and the first life had to be able to reproduce itself, this is not possible without a fully formed cell. So yes abiogenesis is impossible.
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.