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."
No you're not. You're introducing your own arguments and making your own conclusions. My argument is that both evolutionism and creationism remain theories and are stated as such by those who adhere to each one. It is absurd to suggest that I thereby advocate the teaching and acceptance of every Tom-Dick-Harry theory out there, but that is some kind of "logical conclusion" you've chosen to advance on my behalf.
Dang. You make a good evolutionist!
I know what's comical. The fact that you think it's a simple thing to "observe" evolution. That a big sign will pop up and let us know... Or how about the fact that you think evolution is so comical but you follow a theory that has no evidence and was created 2,000 years ago by wandering desert nomads without degrees from Ivy league institutions.
So should we teach all of the theories on the development of life on earth?
It is absurd to suggest that I thereby advocate the teaching and acceptance of every Tom-Dick-Harry theory out there, but that is some kind of "logical conclusion" you've chosen to advance on my behalf.
Oh, please. If you don't want to discuss the notion that some theories are better than others, then you can just live with the results of that. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending that your words don't have logical implications and consequences is unbecoming for adults.
On the contrary, I don't think evolution can be observed at all, let alone with a big sign popping up. It's comical to think you think I think evolution is for real.
No. There would not be time for that. As you say, we need to pick out the best, and let open minds inquire and decide. Some theories are certainly better than others. When it comes to existence and how things came to be the way they are right now, however, there are only TWO possibilities I know of. One of them has been - for reasons unknown to common sense - utterly squelched from the public school system for nearly a century.
Indeed, you understand my position that God is the only observer and the author of Genesis - and that at His inception space/time coordinate (big bang) the equivalent of a 24 hour day would appear to be 8 billion years at our space/time coordinates, etc. Thus, I believe both statements (old and young) are in agreement.
We just never finish the sentence, the universe is 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates.
It sounds like Starlight and Time would have God as the observer from our pre-existing earth space/time coordinate. I would probably dismiss that because time is a part of the creation and not something in which the Creator exists.
Hugs!
Right. Evolutionary theory, and the Native American story of the Raven.
Wait, you had something else in mind, right? Why is your something else a better theory than the Raven theory?
Didn't they tell you? We're all moving to Hawaii...
Actually it was about 3,500 years ago when it was given to Moses to write down the account of how the world came to be. Until that time such knowledge was passed along orally from family to family. This was well before the days of Ivy League musings.
So, how's life in the pond?
Has the Native American story of the Raven been advanced as a legitimate theory WRT existence as we know it? If so, I did not know about it. Please explain it to me, and I'll let you know whether I think it should be considered by my reason and senses and those of my children.
Thanks.
I see where you're coming from. It really poses a big problem where public schools are concerned. I mean, how can anyone possibly introduce creationism in the public arena without introducing God? And once God is introduced, one must deal with a host of notions about religion.
But then, I'm not sure there is a necessity involved. No schoolroom will ever cover all knowledge in every detail. I think a generic, simple presentation from both points of view would suffice.
I've always thought our forefathers were more concerned about the Federal Government somehow advocating/establishing/funding a particular denomination of religion than a generic understanding of God and the rights we have from Him by nature.
I just hope it doesn't get too warm, wherever you end up.
Sure. In exactly the same manner as the Book of Genesis has. The Inuit had the Raven theory as their explanation for where everything came from, just like others theorized about a great anthropomorphic god being responsible for creating heaven and earth. And like that one, it was an oral account that's since been written down - you can read a version of it here.
It's a pretty good theory, as these things go. It doesn't have quite the evidence to support it that evolutionary theory does, but then again, nothing does.
Har har har. That "generic presentation" fig leaf is going to be blown away in the wind the first time a kid asks who the creator is. What will you say? "Could be a giant raven, could be the God of the Bible. Can't say for sure. Sorry."
I'd be curious to know which account of creation is more widely known. That of Genesis or that of the Raven. And to have a general consensus from more sources would even further corroborate creation theories.
In terms of physical evidence, I cannot see how evolution can lose. It has devised unobserved mechanisms for anything it cannot explain. Creationists have their own trump card, too! But really, these are two different world views, and I really don't see great harm in giving each some air time in the public arena.
Have a good evening, and thanks for keeping me involved. I do appreciate it.
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.