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."
if consevatives can not deal with lies // liberalism - - -
. . . on it's own turf!
So science is liberal, strict adherence to writings thousands of years old is conservative. It is easy to change the labels of liberalism and conservatism to whatever you want without backing it up, but it just doesn't make sense. Tell me why thinking evolution is a valid scientific theory is liberal (using proper paragraphing, sentence structure, and punctuation) and why your beliefs are inherently conservative. You need to read the definitions of these words.
That sounds pretty circular. For my part energy and eletric fields, let alone quantum probability amplitudes, are no more material concepts than God. Every theory must have undefined terms. It seems reasonable to call them immaterial.
The difference that most deevos don't grasp is the structure in which these immaterial terms are embedded. Their behaviors are described and constrained by theory and connected to reality in a tangible way. To most deevos, doing such with God would be blasphemy and, since it's all about feelings, missing the point.
Angles?
Acute or obtuse?
;-)
Oh? I don't think history backs that up either assertion.
Polyester. Long-lasting. Stylish too.
Is this really what you want to talk about? I promise to capitalize God from now on when referring to the God of Creation from now on, if it will make you happier. I am not trying to offend, and it makes no difference to me. Ok?
Can we stop dancing? Is it a valid scientific theory? Do you believe that it occurs?
Well, I think you're going to far. Speculation is an essential (and fun) part of the scientific process. What's important is to have the right attitude about it. It's an art really.
If this is your concept, albeit on a large scale, of how the universe and history is unfolding, you've taken your self out of the realm of predicatibility, and by extension out of the realm of science.
So which do you want? Predicatability based on laws that were established from the start, or laws that developed themselves out of a state of total unpredictability? Guess which of these two makes most sense to real scientists, common man, and the Bible?
Ol' Satan must have had his hooks into Leonardo, big time!
Exactly.
And if I see that claim again that low probability means mathematically impossible I'll get the creeps, that's fer sure.
. . . "perhaps Haiti." - - - it all makes sense ! ! !
I've seen you post this at least 5 times. It does nothing but take up space. The Haiti reference is obscure and unimportant and leads me to believe that you aren't really thinking.
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.