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."
As I point out cesslessly, science is about observed and inferred facts, evolution been observed, as conceded by most creationists, who then put up a last ditch stand at the micro-macro argument, and there is tons of evidence virtually all reputable biologist operate on as the base organizing theory in biological sciences. That you dispute this is evident, but carries little weight in scientific circles.
the lack of a holy book is no guarantee against atrocities.
I don't propose to make a meal out of little children, whose rational capacity is not fully developed, nor do I want to purchase the still-living body of Ronald Reagan so that I can turn it into a floor-lamp. Those of us who are capable of reason are usually quite prepared to extend the concept of rights to all of our species.
That's not what evolutionists say.
I'll go back and check it out. The shotgun approach of your posts, however, and the fact that they are rife with both factual and logical errors, makes it a tedious affair to address them as they should be. Call it a "Paine" if you will, and I am not here to be "Pained."
Your authority for applying this to slavery?
There are other issues here. The laws of Moses were described at the time as the laws of God. Why did it take Christians 1860 years to notice that the laws of Moses were not the laws of God?
Please understand that I know where you are coming from. I agree that the teaching of Jesus is an advance on the teaching of Moses. I probably differ on the reason. I believe that religion also evolves, because it is never completly in sync with God. I believe we have the responsibility to put religious teachings to the test of our inner light, even when this contradicts the literal word of the Bible.
The most reasonable thing to think is that the Founding Fathers believed what they wrote. Why would you think otherwise?
Who says I think otherwise? The 'creator' bit in that quote is just a political embellishment, imo.
You're rapidly becoming the Eschoir of the crevo threads, Ted.
Not all the signers of the Constitution were slave owners. Ben Franklin wasn't. Why did he support it's ratification?
If Christianity clarified the problem of slavery, making it clearly immoral, why did it take 1860 years for Christians to notice that?
I could say why did it take that long for anybody to notice? The truth is Christians had been calling slavery evil long before that.
Pope Pius II called slavery a "great crime" in 1462 and popes forbid the enslavement of Indians in 1537, 1639 and 1741. Note the three orders. It seems popes aren't as quick to be obeyed as commonly thought. Slavery in the British colonies ended in 1815. Here's a link to slavery and Christianity from the Catholic Encylcopedia. It seems pretty accurate.
Part three: Another justification for slavery was the claim that Africans were not fully human,
That's what "scientists" were claiming.
Nothing guarantees good behavior, neither intelligence, nor learning, nor good parents, nor the kindly teachings of our elders, nor public profession of faith.
Nor does any story about creation guarantee bad behavior. People are good or bad mostly according to their nature.
I have been through the body count argument and am not impressed. Any bully with sufficient intelligenc and charisma can turn any ideology or theology into a justification for brutality. The argument that certain ideas are inherently evil is pointless. There is no moral system that cannot be perverted. Nor is there any moral system that guarantees virtue.
You're rant goes overboard. You are overestimating the effect creationism has had, does have, or can have on science, education and society in general. Setting up such a strict dichotomy between science and religion serves no other purpose than to make yourself sound smart.
Some of the greatest scientist ever known, including many upon whose shoulders today's scientists stand, are creationists. They don't flout the baggage. They don't have to, and they would feel awkward in doing so. They just are, and they've done very well with the brains they received as a gift from God.
In truth, I think you show yourself to be a thankless fool for so brazenly rejecting the accomplishments of those who belive God has a hand in existence.
You assume that our knowledge of the behavior of black holes is complete -- a completely unfounded assumption.
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.