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."
Well, I'm always happy for "happy oughts," tpaine. And three is a good number. So I will take these "happy -T-houghts" to my slumber this evening, thinking of you in good will....
So there'd better be one, or else...
Why do you think this is a valid argument?
I'll interject myself in your dialogue once more, as this is a common misconception.
The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life, and certainly not the Origin of the universe. You might rightly counter that an Origin of Life, and ultimately, and Origin of the Universe are necessary precursors for the Theory of Evolution to have anything on which to work....
But here's the rub; the Theory of Evolution is NOT contigent upon how the first life originated, nor how the Universe got started. Regardless of how those two phenomona occurred, it is of no more concern to the Theory of Evolution than how moisture originated is to Meteorology: we can predict the weather regardless of the mechanism of how water came into existence. Similarly, the Theory of Evolution doesn't care what the mechanism is by which life originate or how the Universe started; it is operative regardless of those mechanisms.
Origin of Life is a viable scientific question; science has lots of hypotheses about how it could have occurred naturally ("Abiogenesis"), but none have as yet risen to the level of being accepted as a scientific theory.
The Origin of the Universe falls under Cosmology, and the most widely accepted theory, the hot, Inflationary "Big Bang" is based upon a model that starts with an quantum fluctuation from which the entire spacetime fabric, and it's contents, derives. As with many quantum mechancial events, there is no "cause," just as there is no cause that determines when a particular radioactive atomic nuclei will decay, though the decay of a large number of nuclei obeys very predictable statistical rules.
Lastly, anticipating another question: "where did all the energy of the Big Bang come from?" keep in mind the Big Bang Model is perfectly consistent with the total NET energy of the Universe being zero, so there is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy incurred in the formation of the Universe.
Caveat: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Cosmologist; nor do I play one on TV.
Well, no, because inanimate objects can play the role of a quantum mechanical observer just as well as a conscious entity. Single atoms of impurities can be enough to cause decoherence in sensitive enough quantum devices, which is to say, in the right situation an atom can be a QM "observer".
Rocha has told me he disagrees.
With what does he disagree?
Why stop there, and not with "where did God come from", or go further and ask, "why is there something and not just nothing?" At some level, the question is necessarily unanswerable, so our inability to answer "where did the Big Bang come from" is no more of a philosophical disadvantage for physics than is faced by any other school.
Or, possibly more cogently, "How did the energy necessary for the BB to occur organize itself?"
I think that's less cogent, because energy is something that exists in the universe. Energy conservation is a consequence of the temporal homogeneity of space, which is something that is a consequence of (and subsequent to) the Big Bang. It didn't obviously have to be that way; until recently one of the most promising cosmological models called for an vacuum with significant inhomogeneities (the so-called "cosmic string" models).
I admit I don't know if there are superior beings. -- You pretend to know, not me.
but the Declaration of Independence and again the basis of our justice system stems from a belief in God. Otherwise the only justice is force.
You have demonstrated no basis in fact for that opinion, imo. - I have never seen anyone do so. Why don't you write out your ideas on the subject & post an article?
What I forgot to mention in my previous post is that this sounds as if we should keep our mouths shut if we ever find out that a god does not exist (assuming arguendo that this is possible).
Thus, an "observer" is a sufficient, but not necessary condition to cause the quantum state to collapse to a specific value. OTOH, an "interaction" (detection) is BOTH necessary and sufficient.
But when speaking of evolution via random mutation, the replication process is already in place. Origin of life arguments don't apply to probability of novel innovation via mutation.
My additional two points are not an argument against your position:
1. Observation: I suspect current research will show that the seeding for natural selection was more often opportunistic than random. The difference has to do with the capability of the genetic code to self-organize and thus, adapt. I truly believe we are only beginning to discover the algorithmic power of the genetic code.
2. Hypothesis: I assert that an algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design. On a prior post I included two methods of falsification: that such algorithms or information content do not exist - or that such algorithms or information content can arise from null. These apply only to origins (abiogenesis, big bang, etc.) and not to any subsequent events, such as stellar or biological evolution – whether or not algorithmic in themselves.
How so, Physicist? Please detail this process for me. For I am still at a loss to understand (after having heard your "explanation") how it is possible to attribute consciousness to an atom. Is this what you mean to say? If so, then what principle endues a lowly atom with consciousness?
Any principle you name only strengthens the argument, IMHO, that it is consciousness alone that can embue reality with its truth. If you want to recruit atoms as "conscious," and therefore able to be willing partners in the constitution of reality, then -- O.K. That's fine with me. I'd just love to see your evidence.
BTW, it's great to see you again.
It doesn't matter what you understand. You have mistated the Second Law. If that's your understanding, you are merely incorrect.
Thank you also for sharing the views of ICR and the other quotations! Hugs!
... or the Seven Ted Holden Clones....(Wheezy, Sneezy, Droopy, .....)
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.