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."
And why do you think this?
Good post
Sorry, Ted. Multiple personalities does not equate to "critical mass."
In some cases, "critical mass" means it's time to flush out the septic tank.
The entire public school system was established via ideologies incubatory to evolutionst assumptions. No surprise to find evolutionism and its rotten fruit so deeply entrenched there. Nice to see creationists finally plucking whiskers off the beards of these evolutionist "know-it-alls."
Post 1766 by usastandsunited asked Physicist whether he ever "wondered what came before the big bang".
The post by Physicist at post 1797 shows why time is not considered, i.e. space/time does not exist before the Big Bang.
The discussion proceeded away from the discussion of null to a discussion of science v. religion. I hope it'll get back on the subject of null!
To sum it up, time is part of the creation and not something in which the Creator exists.
Because science limits itself to the material, it goes no further than inception (i.e. Big Bang or multi-universe theory.) Religion on the other hand, has no such limitation.
Here's more on Teleology.
Where did he say that he has the answer for everything?
Methinks you read too much into what others write.
Why do you believe that?
I don't know. The Democrats have been doing pretty well with "Vote early and often!"
If the answer to both question is "yes," then either null = zero or it doesn't. I don't see how it helps you. The energy content of the universe calculates to about zero, so the actual net "free lunch" of the universe is about zero, however counterintuitive that may be.
Because I would not like to be a slave. This is a sentiment found in nearly every culture.
Not only are you a liar, you are a shameless liar. With the post showing that the site calls the definition you gave MISLEADING (which you dishonestly did not post) and with the article named THE EVOLUTION SHELL GAME you dare to say that the site supports your definition? You have no shame. The post showing your dishonesty is: Post# 1817
You asked "Is null a number? Can null be used to describe how much energy is in the universe?"
That is close to the question at hand. Zero, null, Ayn Sof, void, empty, vacuum appear to be used to mean the same thing - but are they?
Zero is unique as a number. It is infinitely nothing. You can't divide by it. Multiply anything by it and the result is swallowed up as nothing. Add it to anything and you can't see the result. It has a rather mystical quality in mathematics.
Null is zero on steriods. You can have a result mathematically or by programming which is zero, but null is truly empty. For instance, a field of data may be zero or null. If zero, the value of it is the mystical number zero. But if null, it isn't there.
Vacuum no longer truly means empty, or null, and can only approach zero. This is due to particles coming into and out of existence within a vacuum (a subject related to the Fermilab search for other dimensions.)
Ayn Sof is an ancient Hebrew description of God, the Creator. Roughly, the phrase means null and yet infinite.
It seems to me that some astro-physicists have seized on the vacuum observation to leap away from the obvious meaning of null by proposing multiple universes from multiple quantum fluctuations. This is quite problematic because it would require the alternate universes to have some of the same physical laws as this one.
Curiously, the necessity of and properties of zero and null in our thinking parallels closely to our understanding of God at Creation, i.e. Ayn Sof.
If you'd like any links to support the above statements, please let me know and I'll dig them out.
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.