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."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

How do you base a political philosophy on the theory of evolution?

I wouldn't know. I was agreeing with the poster's observation in saying that such a thing would have a nasty result --- IMHO, particularly in the area of human rights.

But I imagine a political philosophy based on Maxwell's equations would leave human rights in a quandary as well.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post and the information on Vaclav Havel!!! Jeepers...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post and the information on Dr. David Livingstone!!! It saddens me that slavery continues...

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Because the evidence doesn't support 'maybe, maybe not.'

The facile nature of your response it not amusing. If you cannot accept the fact that evolution is still a theory and creationism is still a theory then perhaps you should find a home with Neanderthals.

Wait a minute. Neanderthals don't exist anymore. Or do they? Hmmm.

[gore3000]

They were refuted about 8.4 minutes after you posted them.

A lie, that is why you and your friends do not post the refutation.

Since all of their discoveries conclusively falsify evolution, it should be easy for you to pick your favorite one and tell us how.

As I said, you guys are too lame to do your own work. Here's one which is very important because evolutionists claim this discovery proves evolution when actually it disproves it:

The fly with the extra pair of wings
Already at the beginning of this century geneticists had noted occasional malformations in Drosophila. In one type of mutation the organ that controls balance (the halteres), was transformed into an extra pair of wings (Fig. 2). In this type of bizarre disturbance of the body plan, cells in one region behave as though they were located in another. The Greek word homeosis was used to describe this type of malformations and the mutations were referred to as homeotic mutations.





Fig. 2. Comparison of a normal and a four-winged fruit fly. The third thoractic segment has developed as a duplicate of the second due to a defectic homeotic gene. In the normal fly only the second segment develops wings.

The fly with the extra pair of wings interested Edward B. Lewis at the California Institute of Technology in Los Angeles. He had, since the beginning of the forties, been trying to analyze the genetic basis for homeotic transformations. Lewis found that the extra pair of wings was due to a duplication of an entire body segment. The mutated genes responsible for this phenomenon were found to be members of a gene family ( bithorax-complex) that controls segmentation along the anterior-posterior body axis (Fig. 3). Genes at the beginning of the complex controlled anterior body segments while genes further down the genetic map controlled more posterior body segments (the colinearity principle). Furthermore, he found that the regions controlled by the individual genes overlapped, and that several genes interacted in a complex manner to specify the development of individual body segments. The fly with the four wings was due to inactivity of the first gene of the bithorax complex in a segment that normally would have produced the halteres, the balancing organ of the fly (Fig 3). This caused other homeotic genes to respecify this particular segment into one that forms wings.
From: Nobel Prize in Medicine 1995 .

Evolutionists use this discovery to claim that a mutation can benefit a species. What this proves though is that a mutation severely handicaps a species. Yes, the mutation gives the fly a second pair of wings. However, it gains it at the cost of the hateres which are the stabilizers for the fly when it is in flight. The 2nd pair of wings is totally useless because it does not have the support system necessary to make use of them whereas the normal non-mutated fly has the complete system for the stabilizing hateres and can make good use of it. What this proves is that a single mutation cannot be beneficial becuase you need a support system for any new ability and this would require many mutations - in exactly the right places to be achieved. This is exactly what Intelligent Design says must happen. It should also be noted that a problem along the developmental program has a cascading effect on the rest of the development of an organism.

[Alamo-Girl]

On post 2080, you asked Can you at least accept the fact that "designed things" are present in the universe?

I just wanted to mention that at post 324 I offered some testable claims for intelligent design and creation in response to a related challenge from Doctor Stochastic.

[general_re]

The facile nature of your response it not amusing. If you cannot accept the fact that evolution is still a theory and creationism is still a theory then perhaps you should find a home with Neanderthals.

And storks bringing babies to proud mommies and daddies is also a theory. Let's teach that one.

Or maybe, rather than pretending that all theories are equal, we should try to sort out the good from the bad, and the better from the merely adequate. The evidence simply does not support "maybe, maybe not", regardless of how facile you find that answer to be. I realize that's rather inconvenient for you, but there you go.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Peer review??"

Holy fossils, Batman! I had no idea the practice was so highly subject to chicanery and so completely abject in relevance. Nice post.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"And storks bringing babies to proud mommies and daddies is also a theory."

It is? Maybe in your home, but not in mine.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"The evidence simply does not support 'maybe, maybe not,' . . ."

As if it supports "definitely so." I haven't heard of the Law of Evolution yet, but the evolutionists are sure ready to take up the law if they don't have their way in the classroom. Ha!

[general_re]

Hey, if all theories are equal, your kids are going to be wasting a lot of time "learning" some rather strange stuff. How about the theory that communism is a viable economic system? Is it? "Maybe, maybe not, little Johnny. We just can't say for sure." How about the theory that little angels push the planets around the sun in perfectly circular orbits? Do they? "Maybe, maybe not." How about the theory that the entire universe was barfed out by the Giant Sky Raven? Was it? "Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say, little Johnny. Now get out there and get a job."

[general_re]

As if it supports "definitely so."

Whoopee. So either we're 100% dead-on certain, or we don't know a damn thing. I've always wanted to meet a member of the OJ Simpson jury...

[newguy357]

Thanks for the welcome, Alamo-Girl. Also, I read your view on our origin, and was very impressed. I have a similar view to yours, but have never laid it out so thoroughly. Have you read "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Humphreys? Some of what you said reminded me of his very interesting work. Your collection of scripture references was very complete as well.

One thing I am less convinced about is the time scale of things. I have not yet been convinced by scientists nor theologians regarding a specific age for the universe, or anything else for that matter. One field I am currently majoring in is Physics. I can only hope to one day have the credentials that Physicist has, but already in my few semesters of formally studying physics I have become extremely distrustful of the "experts" of any field. I know so little, but the more I learn and grow, the more I realize how very fragile our knowledge is. By fragile I mean that a new scientific revelation could greatly alter our perception of our universe. I believe history shows us that we can expect more paradigm shifts. I have trouble with anyone who says some specific theory is, without doubt, fact, and that we must believe it.

The Truth is what matters.

I have faith in God and our redemption through Jesus Christ. Personal experience leaves me no other choice. Even as I study physics, and read about processes which seem to take millions or billions of years to complete, I perceive no contradiction. Whether 6000 or 14 billion years old, the universe is His.

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . at post 324 I offered some testable claims for intelligent design . . ."

Okay, thanks. Checked it out. "Steganalysis," "Steganography," etc. will require some further investigation on my part.

This seems to be something that needs to be spelled out in laymen's terms. First step, in my opinion, is at least agreeing there are "designed things" present in the universe.

Am I wrong in assuming there are only two possibilities? 1.) designed things exist, or 2.) designed things do not exist? Perhaps a third: All of existence is a figment of my imagination, but I don't think those kind of skeptics inhabit this place.

[B. Rabbit]

Now if you do not know what the heck I am talking about and do not know enough whether I am wrong or right how can you insult me and call me insane on account of my statements disproving evolution? Clearly you can not. Like the rest of the losers of evolution on these threads whenever you cannot prove someone else wrong you just go to insult mode. You should be ashamed of yourself. However, for your valiant efforts at sliming, insulting, and acting in a totally despicable manner, you have earned yourself the following award:

Now maybe you need a "reading comprehension" course (Your insult, not mine), but I was arguing that you are insane because you stated that you had "thoroughly disproven" evolution here on free republic. I was calling you insane because you have implied that this free republic thread could unarguably be the premier forum for scientific law creation or negation. This is why you are insane. That's all I am saying. But you are twisting my words again in order to convince yourself that I am an idiot. I caught you on a ridiculous statement. I might not be able to argue with you scientifically, but in matters of philosophy and the logic of a debate, you are again a simple man.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for all your kind words and especially for your testimony!

I haven't read Starlight and Time - but I will make it a point to do so.

On the Scripture passages, because the meaning of water is so very important to my understanding of Genesis 1:2-8 - I regret that I did not include John 3:5 and John 4:14 in the essay also. Oh well, hindsight is 20 20 (LOL!)

I'm very confident that you will become a most excellent Physicist because of your humility before God. And you already know the difference between fact and Truth.

Hugs to you and may God bless you always!

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . communism is a viable economic system . . . little angels push the planets around the sun in perfectly circular orbits . . . the entire universe was barfed out by the Giant Sky Raven . . ."

Getting a little whacked out, aren't we? In case you haven't noticed, theories of evolution and theories of creation happen to be at the heart of a major debate, this rather lengthy thread notwithstanding. Your introduction of tangential whims does nothing to forward either the acceptance of evolution theories or the rejection of creationist theories. Not that it matters, but what it does do is considerably lower any potential estimations of your maturity level.

[general_re]

I am merely following your argument to its logical conclusion. You decline to differentiate between theories supported by evidence, and theories not supported by evidence, preferring instead to shove creationism and evolution under the single heading of "theories", and then saying "let's just teach 'em all". Of course, that same argument sounds pretty stupid when applied to other areas, doesn't it? But suddenly it's magically persuasive when the theory in question is evolution?

Well, have it your way, but I really don't think you're going to like the consequences...

[Fester Chugabrew]

"What this proves is that a single mutation cannot be beneficial because you need a support system for any new ability and this would require many mutations - in exactly the right places to be achieved.

Your ability to point out such details as these is much appreciated. Isn't "evolution by mutation" a fabrication to hide the fact that no living creature has yet to be observed "evolving?" I'm not sure whether to count it as sad or comical to see so many things fabricated to fit a theory.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and for taking a tour of that post!

Indeed, the first step is to get agreement that designed things exist. IMHO, that should be axiomatic. After all, everyone lurking has at some point or another surely composed a sentence.

The algorithms and information content discovered throughout nature, to me, are prima facie evidence of design. Conversely, randomness would have been prima facie evidence against design.

With regard to figments of imagination, I agree with Descartes that that is the cleanest of all starting points, and that "God is" and "I think therefore I am" are the first determinations. BTW, in his book Relativity, Einstein notes how close Descartes was in the concept that neither space nor time pre-exist.