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."

[gore3000]

I have seen Pompeii. Those are not fossils.

Of course they are:

fossil-noun:1. any remains, impression, or trace of an animal or plant of past geological ages that has been preserved in the earth's crust.

Fossils generally come from the replacement of soft tissue by minerals dissolved in water.

Nope. In fact the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian fossils are not even remains, they are impressions on rocks.

[Junior]

Proof positive you cannot think scientifically. We observe gravity. We know it exists. The question is, why does it do what it does? That is where gravitational theories come in. You are a stark, raving moron for not having figured that out after what, two years of postings on these threads? Do you undergo a complete memory wipe between threads?

[gore3000]

I observed that scientists tend to bucket bizarre observations under the anthropic principle - bringing research to a halt on their own, just shy of saying God did it. There is no substantive difference in my view.

True, and we may as well mention that evolutionists say that 'natural selection did it'. This is even worse that saying that 'God did it' because natural selection can only destroy, it cannot create as God can. The other replacement for God which evolutionists/materialists use is random chance. This of course is totally unscientific and destroys scientific inquiry because science is all about finding order in nature. Luckily scientists have not paid attention to this nonsense and continue looking for and discovering the order in nature.

[usastandsunited]

That looks like to me everyday language used to make a point. It obvisiously isn't trying to teach science.
Many of us today use the term "The sun rises" or the like. Does that mean we actually think the sun rises ?
What's your point?

[Condorman]

the first life had to be able to reproduce itself, this is not possible without a fully formed cell.

Back to the question I've been asking for 400 posts: Upon what evidence do you base this assumption?

[Condorman]

Looks more like the usual evolutionist lying in order to smear an opponent.

I posted that several times before you bothered to notice it. Drawing your attention to that fact is not a lie. Nor is it a smear. It is an accurate reconstruction of your abysmal reading comprehension skills.

Now for the third time, what about post 1372? I'll reconstruct the question if it's too much trouble to look it up.

Given your distain of peer-reviewed scientific journals, how should scientific knowledge, discoveries and information be verified and disseminated?

[gore3000]

No one has denied gravity is a fact, yet you erroneously continue to claim such. Why?

Absolutely false - and you yourself were one of those who denied it - more than once. Seems evolutionists think that if a few hundred posts have passed since they said something they can turn around 180 degrees and deny it was ever said. Very dishonest of you. Here are SOME of the denials by evolutionists:

Uh, huh. And what makes YOU think that the force that keeps the moon in its orbit is the same thing as the force that keeps your keyster in its chair?
1235 posted on 12/28/2002 8:11 PM PST by Physicist

Sorry, but gravity has never been observed. Events and relations among objects have been observed, and equations have been proposed to describe and predict these relations, but noone are completely satisfactory, so far. So exactlaty what is the "fact" that you refer to?
1253 posted on 12/28/2002 9:20 PM PST by js1138

If you think that gravity has been observed, what color is it?
1254 posted on 12/28/2002 9:22 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic

The question isn't if gravity is true on Earth (by the way, how old do you believe the Earth is?) but if gravity also applies on Sirius. Justify your answer. Compare and contrast with the O.J.Simpson Case.
1262 posted on 12/28/2002 10:18 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic

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?
1270 posted on 12/29/2002 1:24 AM PST by RadioAstronomer

All the above were posted in reply to newguys's statement that gravity is an observed fact and evolution is not. Newguy was absolutely correct as you finally admit. Your dishonesty (and that of other evolutionists) in attacking him for making that statement shows the dishonest mode of discourse of yourself and your friends. It places all of you in the halls of shame.

[Condorman]

The effects of gravity, not gravity itself, have been observed. If you have observed gravity, then by all means, please descibe it.

[Junior]

Now, I was under the impression that in at least one of the cities taken during the Exodus, God commanded His followers to kill all the men and boys capable of bearing arms and to enslave everyone else.

[Physicist]

Leakey means to say that the difference between Homo erectus and us is no more than the difference between Negroes and Eskimos.

Leakey does not mean to say that at all, because the brain capacity of Homo erectus is completely off the low end of the bell curve for a healthy Homo sapiens. The quote is so far out of context as to constitute a deliberate lie.

Ordinarily I would flame someone for stealing someone else's words and claiming them for his own, but in this case I won't. There's something fitting about plagiarizing lies.

[Physicist]

I was just saying that Darwin renounced everything he believed in about evolution, that all. What's the problem?

The problem is that it's an outright lie, and even the creationist community is aware of that, to the point that it's the first thing they warn you away from saying.

[Physicist]

When was the last time you read a scientific journal disproving evolution so that you would be well rounded in your knowledge about the universe?

I'm a physicist. Shouldn't you have me reading scientific journals that disprove electromagnetism? Am I not well-rounded because I don't?

[VadeRetro]

Well, then show me one missing link skeleton between any species.

A Sirenian With Legs.

Two Instances of "Whales" With Legs. (There are others.)

What do you see in the figure above?

From the same page:

Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright © 2002 McGraw-Hill)

Pick whatever you like from this old thread on the dinosaur-bird transition.

And you have the gaul to tell us we are not scientific? YOU MAKE ME LAUGH! ROTFLOL!!!!!

You mean "gall." And it's safe to say that you don't have a particle of curiosity in your whole body.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"The effects of gravity, not gravity itself, have been observed. If you have observed gravity, then by all means, please descibe it.

The effects of evolution, not evolution itself, have been assumed by evolutionists. If you have observed evolution, then by all means, please descibe it.

[VadeRetro]

The mask is slipping badly, Ted. Next thing you'll be calling me "Reep" and posting your 300K quote-salad that got you banned time-before-last.

[VadeRetro]

Now try and answer the question. Why did any animal make all the parts of the eye before it could be used for seeing?

It didn't happen that way. That's another thing about your laughable claim of being interested in the science of things.

Science isn't about how deliberately dumb you can be. Everything is impossible if you start imagining silly ways for it to be impossible. An old-timey Greek named Zeno figured out some ingenious ways "logical" reasons that all motion is impossible. You can be wrong and ingenious at the same time.

How Could an Eye Evolve? (Want to speed things up? Don't forget to click on the links so I don't have to link every sub-page for you. For once in your pig-ignorant life, anticipate an argument!)

[whattajoke]

Jesus Christ, man, where did you come from? What state do you live in? What church do you go to? I am developing a theory about creationists, and if you don't mind, I'm going to use you as an example. I will show, in the simplest of non scientific terms, the "evolution," so to speak, of creationists. (Before you say I didn't answer your questions, I urge you to read any of the crevo posts, any biology book, any website, etc for your 9th grade level questions).

Early Creationists, Homo Stupidis Creationoids: Like Webber, they continue to use nonsensical childish "arguments" to "prove" the literal version of biblical creation. In spite of the fact that all the leading Creation writers, websites, and defenders have implored their flock to stop using such "arguments," St. Creationoids continue to do so, only serving to make their ideas look as ridiculous as they are. Scientists consider this species a lost cause. Example arguments: (See Webber posts, or research poor Medved's old drivel) "If man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" "Darwin recanted his theories on his deathbed," "2nd Law of thermo," "The eye is so dern complicated, there's no way it evolved, etc."

Old Earth Creationists, Homo Halfwaythericus Creationoid: A curious lot, but to be admired for their faith. They accept the fact of an old earth, and may even accept that Noah didn't really collect all those animals, but they still believe the Christian God directed everything and evolution is a myth. God really loves beetles!

Intelligent Designers, Homo Duplicitous Creationoid: The worst of the lot, like Gore3000 and his hero Behe. They purposely lie and twist real science to appear more learned. They use numbers and math and out of context postulates to subvert their world view. Behe does it for money, Gore3000? I have no idea. But he still won't answer the question of how old the earth is, because if he accepts that it is over 4 billion years old, then all his ID theory becomes moot, but if he believes it is 6-10K yrs old, then he is exposed as an even bigger joke.

There are many more sub species within the Creationoid branch. Of course, much to the chagrin of Christians in America, there are innumerable other creationists with their own creation myths from different cultures (believe it or not). There are those who believe in an old earth, god created everything, but let it go which may or may not be evolution. On and on and on.

The fact remains: Evolution has been occurring for eons, it is continuing to happen, and it will continue to do so until our sun goes Red Giant. Scientists are still working on the mechanisms of how it happens, thats what scientists do. So please, Creationoids, crawl back in your holes and try to figure out if you are going to argue about honeybees, eyes, flagellum, or whatever the flavor of the month is. When you stop asking these repetitive juvenile questions and come up with one shred of proof for a young earth, or ID, or Adam and Eve, get back to me. Otherwise, go away.

[VadeRetro]

Well, then show me one missing link skeleton between any species.

Have a few hundred in the vertebrate realm. While we're at it, have some Phylum-Level Transitions.

[Physicist]

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.

Ridiculous. That's like saying that an artist's claim that a portrait represents its subject implies that the portrait is its subject. You understand the artist's claim; why are you confused by the scientist's equivalent claim?

To follow Roger Penrose, evolution is a useful theory without which "nothing in biology makes sense."

Dobzhansky, I believe.

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.

And no scientist I know would disagree with that. This is strictly a debate about process, not about theology. The problem is that some people have made their theology contingent upon the specific process described in Genesis, and they take it personally when that process is shown to be false.