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."

[RightFighter]

You sound mightily impressed with yourself. There will come a time when you'll see some objective truth to having a Creator. Whether you discard the notion at that time is your choice, of course.

I'd choose wisely.

Ummmmm...actually, we could start a whole Calvinism thread on the last two sentences in this post.

[whattajoke]

Evolution entails fundamental assumptions concerning the origin, purpose, and destination of life and all its elements.

Kind sir, you really must do a bit of reading before posting something so wrong. In the millions of pages written on evolution, not a one adresses what you claim. Your post, whether purposefully or not, is an outright lie.

Maybe scientists are the last to admit they have any beliefs, but in the end, that's all they have. They are no better in terms of ultimate knowledge and understanding than a superstitious pigmy. I suppose we can all pretend they know it all

Let me guess, you don't visit doctors or dentists because they don't know medicine any better than you do? You pray for your car to fix itself rather than visiting a mechanic? When your computer crashes you shut your eyes and think real hard about it fixing itself rather than calling IT? Of course not, so let's allow biologists do their job and respect them too. Sheesh.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The origin of life and evolution are plainly connected and argued in many places. Surely you would not be satisifed with a short summary from a simple fool like me.

[HalfFull]

btt

[PatrickHenry]

Galileo Galilei is generally the one cited as evidence of the Church's anti-science tilt. But while Galileo was told to shut up -- perhaps like Dembski and Behe today -- he was not beaten, blinded tortured or burned at the stake -- as is often alleged -- and his imprisonment consisted of 22 days in a luxury apartment. He was generally also well-respected by church authorities. Many agreed with his views. He was blessed by the Pope at his death and buried in a church.

Twenty-two days? Yeah, right. Galileo and the Inquisition.

In 1633 Galileo was formally interrogated for 18 days and on April 30 Galileo confesses that he may have made the Copernican case in the Dialogue too strong and offers to refute it in his next book. Unmoved, the Pope decides that Galileo should be imprisoned indefinitely. Soon after, with a formal threat of torture, Galileo is examined by the Inquisition and sentenced to prison and religious penances, the sentence is signed by 6 of the 10 inquisitors. In a formal ceremony at a the church of Santa Maria Sofia Minerva, Galileo abjures his errors. He is then put in house arrest in Sienna.

Galileo remained under house arrest, despite many medical problems and a deteriorating state of health, until his death in 1642.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"In the millions of pages written on evolution . . ."

I have every reason to believe you've read them all, and swallowed them whole.

"Let me guess, you don't visit doctors . . ."

Bad guess, but then you're apparently comfortable with a lot of guessing. Have fun.

[PatrickHenry]

But while Galileo was told to shut up -- perhaps like Dembski and Behe today -- he was not beaten, blinded tortured or burned at the stake -- as is often alleged -- and his imprisonment consisted of 22 days in a luxury apartment.

This may be the source of your misunderstanding: HERE.

After two weeks in quarantine, Galilei was detained at the comfortable residence of the Tuscan ambassador, as a favor to the influential Grand Duke Ferdinand II de' Medici. In April 1633 he was formally interrogated by the Inquisition. He was not imprisoned in a dungeon cell, but detained in a room in the offices of the Inquisition for 22 days. On June 22, 1633, the Roman Inquisition started its trial against Galilei, who was then 69 years old and pleaded for mercy, pointing to his "regrettable state of physical unwellness". Threatening him with torture, imprisonment and death on the stake, the show trial forced Galileo to "abjure, curse and detest" his work and to promise to denounce others who held his prior viewpoint.

But that was pre-trial confinement only.

Galileo was put under life-long house arrest, for the most part (1634-1642) in his own villas in Arcetri and Florence. Because of a painful hernia, he requested permission to consult physicians in Florence, which was denied by Rome, warning that further such requests would lead to imprisonment. Under arrest, he was forced to recite penitentiary psalms regularly, and his social contacts were highly restricted, but he was allowed to continue his less controversial research and publish under strict rules of censorship. He went totally blind in 1638 (his petition to the Inquisition to be released was rejected, but he was allowed to move to his house in Florence where he was closer to his physicians). His Dialogue was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum, a black list of banned books, until 1822. [

[Condorman]

The origin of life and evolution are plainly connected and argued in many places. Surely you would not be satisifed with a short summary from a simple fool like me.

Origin of life and origin of species are, indeed, connected. Evolution generally requires the presence of life, and it's a fairly safe assumption that the presence of life will lead to evolution.

But we are speaking of theories. These are separate topics, each of which is addressed by separate theories. You claim that the theory of evolution contains fundamental assumptions of the origin and purpose of life. You must therefore be aware of a theory of evolution which I am not, and yes, I would be interested to know what it is. Chances are I would also argue against it.

[longshadow]

Origin of life and origin of species are, indeed, connected.

Much as the origin of water and meteorology are connected.

The important point in BOTH cases is that the latter theory is INDEPENDENT of the theory regarding the former, respectively.

The Theory of Evolution is not dependent upon how the first life arose anymore than weather forecasting is dependent upon how water came into existence.

[Condorman]

THANK YOU!!

I was looking for a good analogy. Among others I tried and abandoned are weather and tides, and Computer Science vs. CompE. Yours is infinitely better.

[longshadow]

Yours is infinitely better.

In the interests of full disclosure, I didn't think it up.

Some FReeper, whose identity eludes me, posted it on one of these threads a year or two ago. It was so apt an analogy, it stuck in my head. Your post was an poignant opportunity to trot it out again.

Notwithstanding that, your flattery is none the less appreciated.

[f.Christian]

Water---weather are reality...evolution is a snowstorm on the equator(joke)!

[DannyTN]

By then there will be proof of deevolution.

Man isn't coming from the apes,
he is going to them!

[Tribune7]

OK, he was in formal penal institution for 22 days (Catholic Encyclopedia) or 18 days (Galileo and the Inquistion.)

The rest of the time he was under house arrest living in relative luxury compared to the average European.

Remember what's being claimed here is that Christian instituions are by nature anti-science or somehow inherently impede scientific progress.

Galileo was not treated fairly but you mustn't forget that he was a Christian, was supported by a lot of Christians and, most importantly, that a Christian culture allowed -- encouraged -- him to investigate and publish.

[Aric2000]

You made a joke?

Wow, what a concept....

But so is reality, and you haven't a clue what that is....

[DannyTN]

I'm always amazed how closed minded the evolutionists are.

There are many possibilities out there of how the species originated, but evolutionists are so certain they have the one possible answer.

There was a PBS special on last night where they were examining the earliest known humanoid in North America. The scientists concluded that those remains not only challenged previously held convictions about how man arrived in the American continents but also how and whether man evolved from apes.

But the evolutionists wont even listen to the growing chorus of non-religious scientists that are saying the evidence in support of evolution is severely lacking.

[f.Christian]

In the summer do you work at the county fair...travel the state---in a trailer year round?

[Tribune7]

Patrick,

I more closely read your link. It appears that the treatment of Galileo is exaggerated in education and popular culture. Again that is not a claim that he was treated acceptably.

More recently, the viewpoints of (Andrew Dickson) White and his colleagues have become less-generally accepted by the academic community, partially because White wrote from a perspective that Christianity is a destructive force.

This attitude can also be seen in the works of Bertolt Brecht, whose play about Galileo is one of the chief sources for popular knowledge on the scientist.

Moreover, deeper examination of the primary sources for Galileo and his trial shows that claims of torture and deprivation were likely exagerrated. Dava Sobel's Galileo's Daughter offers a different set of insights into Galileo and his world, in large part through the private correspondence of Maria Celeste, the daughter of the title, and her father.

[Iota]

Same old witch doctors indeed. The parallels to the Edwards case -- where the Supremes squashed Louisiana's Creationism Act, which required that both evolution and "creation science" taught, or neither -- are uncanny:

"In this case, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint. Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. . . . The Establishment Clause, however, "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma." Id., at 106-107 (emphasis added). Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment."

I think Edwards is also where Louisiana (and Alabama before them) draws inspiration for these disclaimers:

"We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. Indeed, the Court acknowledged in Stone that its decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization. 449 U.S., at 42. In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

I'm not sure simply singling out evolution for special criticism avoids the Establishment Clause problem the way that actively teaching competing theories (I know, I know, there aren't any, but bear with me) would, but that appears to be what the creationists are trying to hang their hats on.