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."
Why do you consider it to be an aberration?
I didn't ask you about your religion. If you aren't willing to defend your position, then you are not scientific. So, again, I ask you. If a creator did not create the universe and all of the order in it, how did it come into being? Was it by Chance? I am asking you for your scientific explanation of the origins of the universe. Also, I asked you about your philosophy, e.g. if you are a materialist. Why are you afraid of the question? In case you did not realize it, ALL SCIENCE has a philosophy behind it. 100% of it.
They are kept separate, because they are like OIL and water, they do not mix. Religion is based on the
Evolution is illogical, and is not based on real science. It is based on an atheistic/naturalistic worldview. First comes the worldview, then comes belief in evolution. Evolutionists say man evolved from chimps because the DNA is 97% similar. In logical terms, this would be stated: X is similar to Y in Z, therefore Y evolved from X. The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. It is an illogical conclusion (known as the Law of the Excluded Middle). Something that is illogical cannot be scientific.
No and no.
However, you still haven't explained why the Judeo-Christian creation story should be taught as scientific fact over L. Ron's tale of Xemu and the volcano.
Merely the idea that the Pilgrims or the Founding Fathers were Christian and believed that the Earth was created only 10,000 years ago or so doesn't actually give the idea any scientific validity. After all, the founding fathers also believed in treating various ailments by bleeding the patient.
Indeed, the post at 2187 is focused on biology, but the "key phrase" applies universally and is intended to answer your challenge: But to the topic at hand, there is no way for us to tell if the universe was designed or not.
The key phrase fom 2187 is The presence of algorithm from inception is proof of intelligent design.
I'll leap to the conclusion that some lurkers might be interested in algorithms beyond genetics and provide these few links:
Schmidhuber - Algorithmic Theories of Everything
Iaian Stewart - Theories of Everything
Stephen Wolfram - A New Kind of Science
Entropy in Logic and the Theory of Algorithms
I don't really think that is necessary to answer that question in this instance any more than it was necessary to address similar questions here.
The last point I wanted to make is that I try to use only highly credible sources and most of the information I post has already appeared in peer-reviewed publications or is a debate thread among the experts.
But until unguided synthesis produced amino acids, they were considered impossible to synthesize. Ignorance is not impossibility.
The distinction between right and privilege it seems to me is that rights are generally granted by all to all whereas privileges are restricted in some way. You might say that a privilege is a right that only some have.
Is slavery evil? Is there a God-given right not to be a slave? Is the right inherent in being human, or is it the result of being born at the right place or the right time?
I did see that point. You followed it up with two methods of falsification. I suspect the debate will rage for some time of the existence of the algorithms, and assuming the appearance of such is not an artifact of some type, there will be several more decades (at least) of research investigating the possibility that they arose naturally. Whatever the outcome, it ought to be fun to watch.
The last point I wanted to make is that I try to use only highly credible sources and most of the information I post has already appeared in peer-reviewed publications or is a debate thread among the experts.
You may be correct in your analysis of the debate, and it has certainly been my impression that you tend to be careful in the sources you cite. Quite honestly, I do not follow the debate, but you have piqued my curiosity. I expect I'll probably take a closer look if/when I happen across any articles in my travels.
I did take a cursory glance at some of the links you posted and the couple I looked at were concerned primarily with describing the universe as a discreet collection of probabilities. I didn't see anyone claiming to have discovered emergent algorithms in the universe, but I will look over the links more carefully in the next few weeks.
Yes.
Is there a God-given right not to be a slave?
Yes
Is the right inherent in being human,
Junior and I were discussing the word "inherent" a little while ago. My view is that rights are not inherent but endowed.
or is it the result of being born at the right place or the right time?
I would say that the right to be free was endowed at creation. So, why did the Constitution allow for slavery?
Tpaine, By removing "by the creator", the sentence begs the question by whom or by what are all men endowed?
Nope, we are inately endowed with rights by our own reasoning ability. Our free will is a self evident truth.
As well as why is it self evident? If by evolution and chance then it is certainly not evident at all. Regards, Boiler Plate
Why are rights self evident? -- Would you deny that you have a free will to assert your rights?
Posted by Tribune7:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their ability to reason with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
First, our Founders didn't write this.
So what? It makes just as much sense without the Creator wording.
Secondly, how can the ability to reason endow unalienable rights?
Reason enables us to see the self evident truth that we all possess rights to life, liberty, and property.
The ability to reason is far more often used to steal another's rights than to defend them.
Again, -- if so, so what?
So why didn't the Founders use that wording?
Secondly, how can the ability to reason endow unalienable rights? Reason enables us to see the self evident truth that we all possess rights to life, liberty, and property.
Reason enables us to see the self-evident truth that if I'm bigger or smarter than the other guy I will be able to rob him blind and sell him into slavery.
The ability to reason is far more often used to steal another's rights than to defend them. Again, -- if so, so what?
It means that the ability to reason could not have endowed us with any rights.
But that same reason should be able to tell you that a biggersmarterstronger person would be able to do the same to you. In some sense I think that rights are an act of self-preservation. Not to mention they happen to make for a much happier society.
If the right not to be a slave was endowed at creation, why is slavery explicitly sanctioned in Leviticus?
(from dictionary.com -- sanction: Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. See Synonyms at permission.
So why didn't the Founders use that wording?
The king claimed his rights came from god, -- so I'd suppose that the FF's were trying to 'one up' him. -- But its always been politically fashionable to put the creator on your side.
Secondly, how can the ability to reason endow unalienable rights?
Reason enables us to see the self evident truth that we all possess rights to life, liberty, and property.
Reason enables us to see the self-evident truth that if I'm bigger or smarter than the other guy I will be able to rob him blind and sell him into slavery. The ability to reason is far more often used to steal another's rights than to defend them.
Again, -- if so, so what?
It means that the ability to reason could not have endowed us with any rights.
Sure, OK. -- Whatever you think. - I can't argue with logic used like that.
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.