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."
Public schools are by nature a conglomeration of private individuals that hold any and every view of life imaginable. The attempt to introduce disclaimers WRT to evolution is a reaction to overhanded declarations by evolutionsts, who present themselves and their theories as if they must receive uncritical acceptance. This is a disservice to private individuals who may hold some fairly reasonable theories of their own.
I am no friend of a public school that cannot tolerate open intellectual debate. Just as one can hold evolutionist views without adopting communism, so can one hold creationist views without becoming a Christian.
I think the American public is getting just a bit tired of force-fed evolution theory when their tax dollars are paying for it.
First, your position that the universe is not understandable by man does not constitute open-mindedness. It constitutes closed-mindedness.
Second, don't presume to lecture me on what we know and what we don't know, or to tell me that we don't know everything in physics. The border between our knowledge and our ignorance is exactly where I make my living, and it's a territory I know very well. If I thought we knew everything, I'd be out of a job.
Your arguments state anything goes.
My argument is that nature operates according to knowable rules. It is the antithesis of "anything goes".
Your arguments state what can't be proven and what is not knowable is "null".
Not at all. What I'm saying is that, in the context of the Big Bang model, the idea of "before the Big Bang" is known and proven to be null. (Aside: Do you think that the square root of 2 can be expressed as a ratio of integers? Why or why not?)
It appears you may be confusing the map with the territory. The Big Bang is a model. It may or may not be correct, which is to say, it may or may not reflect the true structure of the physical universe. If you ask a question about the behavior of the Big Bang, you are necessarily asking a question about the behavior of the model. So when you ask "what happened before the Big Bang," you are asking a mathematical question, which does admit of a definitive answer; the knowledge and powers of God as you imagine him don't enter into it. It's just like the question about the rationality of the square root of two. It turns out, there's no such thing.
Now, let's say, for the sake of argument, that our model is wrong, and the universe as we see it was created in a hyper-dimensional brane collision. The question, "what happened before the Big Bang," becomes meaningless with respect to the physical universe, as that model doesn't pertain to it.
Your arguments state words or writings mean nothing, only physical evidence.
Now you're leaning towards the truth. Words do mean things, of course, but physical evidence trumps them every time. The universe is the way it is, and not how we would wish it to be.
Atheism and naturalism are also integral to meterology. And there's an entire TV channel dedicated to promoting those weather sickos!
Can you cite a source for this? I really think you're trying to stretch this thing a bit far. Face it. The two ideologies fit together nicely. Marx would not fancy a dedication to Origin of Species unless he held it in high regard.
I will gladly admit that the association between the two does not lend validity to one or the other. Both are bankrupt!
And yes, I believe the copy you've just seen on line is dedicated to someone else. I am only citing another source when I say Marx wanted to dedicate his work in this way. For all I know my source is wrong.
Good for you. As you should. Now my rejoinder is to simply substitute "evolution" for "Christianity", and trust that you understand the point I am making. Like so:
That the events took place I have no doubt. That they are representative ofChristianityevolution I have every doubt.
These and their fruits are all antithetical to Christianity, including innocent bloodshed.
I could make a rather crass observation at this point, but I will simply reiterate that you are conveniently defining anything personally offensive to you as being "antithetical to Christianity". Very well - communism is antithetical to evolutionary theory. Obviously so - as Condorman has pointed out, "survival of the fittest" is not in accord with communist ideology.
I have now disclaimed this connection that you have labored to establish, and done so in exactly the same manner with which you have hand-waved away some of the bloodier portions of Christian history. If your disclaimer is valid, mine must be also, since it's identical in form and substance.
Could you please explain to me how objective truth can exist indepently from a source?
I don't know what that means. Either facts exist independently of us, or they do not. Does the factual truth of a historical event depend upon the person relating it to you? If I tell you that in August of 1945, an atomic bomb was detonated over Japan, would me being a communist make that statement false? If I persuade you that I'm a devout Christian, and then tell you that the Moon exploded three years ago, does the fact that I am a devout Christian make my claim true?
Why did you stretch my words as if to say I believe there is no such thing?
I don't have to "stretch" your words - that's exactly what you said. You said that truth depends on the source. Thus, truth is subjective, and not objectively verifiable. I admit, I was rather surprised to see you take such a position, but that's pretty much where you've planted your flag for the moment. I wouldn't blame you for reconsidering, however.
Vaclav Havel said that when he was put in jail, he felt more of a free man than when he was outside. Carlos
You really are a bore. Let the lurkers decide:
You continue to lie about my posts. I have never denied the existance of gravity.
Guess that quoting your posts is lying now? Is that the Clintonian definition of lying or the dictionary one?
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
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.
1627 posted on 12/31/2002 6:06 AM PST by gore3000
1901 posted on 01/01/2003 10:34 AM PST by gore3000
[Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1855 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
It's making a comeback in much of North Africaalthough for a while starting in the mid-19th century -- largely at the behest of Dr. David Livingstone -- slavery was stifled in North and East Africa.
Livingstone was the explorer of Stanley & Livingstone fame -- and a very devout Christian missionary.
Man, you just won't face it. Darwin rejected the dedication. Do you understand what rejection means? Read the website I recently linked.
Evolution (the best adapted survive to breed the next generation) is the opposite of "to each according to his needs." The two theories are incompatible.
Here's the reason I ask. Elaine Morgan uses an evolutionary model but, as I see it, you don't have to be an evolutionist to buy into the basic part of her theories. I suspect she is almost certainly correct in thinking that modern humans originally lived in water. We seem to share any number of traits with the aquatic mammals, and with nothing else. Not having a fur coat on is an adaptation for living in reasonably warm water; it's a disadaptation for anything on land. Having our legs be the major limbs (as opposed to all apes and monkeys whose arms are the major limbs) is also an adaptation for swimming and wading. There's a great deal more.
That says also that the original human diet was some combination of shellfish and fruit which we'd walk up on shore to pick. Humans can get shellfish with their hands, and fish can't really do anything with shellfish.
It also says that all other taste in food are acquired tastes. In particular, it says that there is no rational reason to force kids to eat green vegetables.
The most basic rule of child nutrition as I see it is this: if the kid won't or can't eat it, the sum total nutritional value is zero. The whole world knows that a little kids basic reaction to alcohol and tobacco is correct; why would anybody think his reaction to green vegetables was wrong?
At least thank God at this point the Chinese have pretty much taught the world to cook broccali and some kinds of peas and beans so most pepole can eat them. When I was a kid, every woman in America was cooking peas and green beans into a sort of a green glue and trying to flavor the mess to taste like C rations and K rations (the food they grew up with and loved) and poison not only her own kids with it, but the neighbor kids too. It was pretty gross.
Thus I could understand it if Moses were to declare green beens to be verboten. But shellfish? That was in all likelihood the original human diet.
How do you crush something into a plasma?
Does not help you.
The question was:
Just show me the fossils which show how reptiles changed their mode of reproduction from egg laying to live bearing.
You did not answer the question posed to you. My question was in reference to your post# 1639 where you claimed that you had hundreds of fossils proving evolution. Now since clearly you cannot show anything about the transformation of such an important system (which is hard to believe that it could be possible at all) as the species's reproductive system the millions of bones evolutionists have collected are total garbage as far as giving proof of evolution.
No sir. You've diverted the subject from the distinction between evolutionism and creationism. Evolutionism has communism as a kin ideology. What does creationism have? If you think Christianity was born of a need to futher express creationism . . . well, so much for your reliability as a source for facts.
Speaking of facts and sources for facts, you are absolutely right in mainting that fact is a fact no matter who says it. But the person saying the fact is not the same thing as the "source" of the fact. Facts do not depend on the source of the one repeating them for their basis objective reality.
Your attempt to equate "Christianity" with every attendant manifestation that happens to take up the word makes you an unreliable source. Evolutionism and communism, by vitue of Marx's delight in Darwin's work, makes it easy to associate the two. In fact the association is clean and tight. They don't even try to hide it like you do.
Hitler was very much an anti-Christian who desperately wished to destroy the faith. Here is an interesting link.
No kidding. I hate to break it to you, but that's sort of the point I've been hammering on for a few dozen posts now. So maybe, just maybe, it's possible that evolution is true, despite the fact that communists claimed to be enamored of it?
Your attempt to equate "Christianity" "evolution" with every attendant manifestation that happens to take up the word makes you an unreliable source.
Heck, I should just shut up and let you make my arguments for me.
Evolutionism and communism, by vitue of Marx's delight in Darwin's work, makes it easy to associate the two. In fact the association is clean and tight. They don't even try to hide it like you do.
Okay, then. Let's step back and return to the question you ignored earlier. I'll repost it, for convenience's sake:
Assume for the sake of argument that what you claim is true. Assume for a moment that there is a strong relationship between Darwinian evolution and communism - communists love Darwin to death, and long to bear his children, and sleep with The Origin of the Species under their pillows. Assume all that's true. So what? Why is that important?
And you have not been able to refute those statements even though they are over six months old. In fact, I do not think you have even tried to refute any of my statements in ages because essentially the only thing you know how to do is insult opponents and make specious remarks like the one above.
However, not just you, but others have tried to refute those statements. I have even posted to make the refutation easier a list of the Nobel Prize winners in the biological field to make it easy for you fellows to refute me (evolutionists are by nature arrogant and lazy, so one must help them). Your friends took a crack at 3 or so and I showed clearly that they disproved evolution. If you (or rather your friends - you know nothing except insults) think they can refute those statements by me, let's see them do it.
I did read that website. It makes the association between the two even more clear, especially Marx's fondess for Darwin. Thanks for posting it!
Here. Let's grab the first portions.
Shall we chalk this association up to sheer coincidence?Dear Sir:
I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.
I remain, Dear Sir
Yours faithfully,Charles Darwin
Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx October, 1873
"Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views."
Karl Marx on Darwin's Origin of Species
December, 1860
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.