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."

[Alamo-Girl]

For the lurkers, I offer these links to help sort out the issues that may be plaguing the debate on quantum mechanics and consciousness:

An introduction to the issues

Theories which explore possible connections between quantum mechanical phenomena and consciousness

A review of Francis Crick's "Astonishing Hypothesis"

Symposium on Roger Penrose's "Shadows of the Mind"

Quantum Quackery

[Junior]

...the basis of our justice system stems from a belief in God.

The basis for our justice system stems from the notoriously pagan Vikings, who instituted trial by jury to keep vendettas from spinning out of control. Also, it borrows heavily from the jurisprudence of pagan Rome. I'm not sure which part stems from a belief in God, since OT justice consisted of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

[Physicist]

Atoms are not conscious. The point is that consciousness is not necessary for an observation; it's an "information" thing, not a "knowledge" thing. If I shine a bright enough light at electrons passing through a two-slit diffraction plate, the electron diffraction pattern is destroyed whether or not I have the equipment to determine which slit each electron passes through. It's the electron-photon interaction that collapses the wavefunctions, not the human mind. Any interaction that transfers information from the wavefunction will do.

[PatrickHenry]

The basis for our justice system stems from the notoriously pagan Vikings, who instituted trial by jury to keep vendettas from spinning out of control. Also, it borrows heavily from the jurisprudence of pagan Rome.

Plus a massive input from English common law, which was quite distinct from the separate system of Church cannon law. We got another big input from yet another separate system -- merchant law, which arose to govern commercial conduct at the market place.

[Physicist]

Furthermore, for all the talk about scientific method requiring predictability, they sure lose zeal for that idea when faced with a mass of gases that somehow came into being, exloded, and then brought about not only the universe as we know it but also scientists who can cogitate upon the same.

That sure would be ridiculous, if that were the theory of the Big Bang, but of course it's not. You won't be in a position to debunk it until you are conversant with its most basic concepts.

The equivalent dismissal of Christianity would be, "there was this old man with a white beard, who then became God somehow, and who then somehow created the universe and then man."

[Physicist]

Do you know (if such a thing can even exist) what the proportion between "single atoms of impurity" and their counterpart might be?

I'm not sure, but it seems you're asking about what the concentration of the impurities in the medium.

In this case, the concentration doesn't matter as much as the effective cross section of the atom compared to the cross section of the channel in which the wavefunction is propagating. I don't have an exact answer off the top of my head, but in a small device, I believe they can be comparable. In the case of a single wavefunction, however, statistics go out the window: either the wavefunction interacts with the atom, or it doesn't. If you're doing quantum computing, for example, any interaction is fatal.

[exmarine]

I understand it perfectly. It's for simpletons. Natural selection + random mutation is responsible for bacteria evolving into human beings. Problem is - there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. All of the evidence I have ever seen is exremely weak and involved leaps of speculation - there is not scientific confirmation of molecule to man evolution. Zero.

[exmarine]

I see when you can't respond to the question- you fall back on the ole - "you don't understand evolution" ploy. Typical! Let the world see that you didn't answer my challenges. You are afraid to or are unable to.

[exmarine]

Look - This DNA similarity argument has been used by evolutionists more times than I can count in my debates with them. Yes, it is an argument put forrth by evolutionists. It is certainly not a straw man I erected - I could never come up with such a lame argument.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"That sure would be ridiculous, if that were the theory of the Big Bang . . ."

Okayfine. So I am not conversant with all the details of Big Bang theories. It is still part and parcel of scientific method to employ probabilities and predictions. That's really all we have to work with.

Predictability works very well when one is dealing with a universe chock-full of design at every turn. If everything has been derived from, and continues to be derived from, a mass of undirected energy, then one must throw predicatability, and even science itself, out the window.

The recurring mantra "religion is not science" finds an equally valid counterpart in "evolution is not science" insofar as the latter can only extrapolate assumptions based on past, unpredictable processes.

[betty boop]

The point is that consciousness is not necessary for an observation; it's an "information" thing, not a "knowledge" thing.

Thanks for the info, Physicist. I understand how it applies to particle behavior. But I don't think we're speaking of the same thing. If were to push your logic, I would have to ask: Are you saying that science could simply dispense with scientists? I had thought the reason that scientists bother to design experiments is to be able to observe their results.

[B. Rabbit]

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. -exmarine

They are kept separate, because they are like OIL and water, they do not mix. -Aric

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.

Since Aric is not around right now, I'll try and come up with what I believe to be the answers. You asked him if a creator did not create the universe, than how did it come into being? The answer may surprise you coming from the scientific world: nobody knows for sure right now. However, there is much research being done, and many people refuse to fall into the trap of our ancestors and stop thinking about it and claim the work of a supernatural being. If this is really your unstoppable argument, than how did God come into being? You don't know either or you will give a vague, unscientific response such as "he has always been and does not operate in time". How lucky and fortunate of you to have an escape to the same questions you demand from the other side. There is very little that is scientific about the knowledge we have about the origins of the universe right now, almost like there is no scientific evidence of your theories. Science allows for an "I don't know yet". This has no real direct connection to evolution anyway.

If X is similar to Y in Z, then it is possible that X and Y came from similar origins. Not definite, but most definitely possible. It is a theory which holds a good amount of credibility, but is by no means certain. A theory is developed and further research is warranted. Scientifically (without religious bias) it is the best theory on the origin of species that we have today. Would you agree to any of this?

[B. Rabbit]

The recurring mantra "religion is not science" finds an equally valid counterpart in "evolution is not science" insofar as the latter can only extrapolate assumptions based on past, unpredictable processes.

I actually think this is a very interesting point. I am not saying I agree that it is an equally valid counterpart, nor do I believe that a scientific theory canNOT be based on the extrapolation of assumptions "based on past, unpredictable processes." But it does make me think.

[FreeTheHostages]

The equivalent dismissal of Christianity would be, "there was this old man with a white beard, who then became God somehow, and who then somehow created the universe and then man."

Damn, you're good. That's a direct hit.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Viking Law, Roman Law, English Common Law, Merchant Law, etc. You may think you've struck upon a mother lode of wild diversity in human thought, but an honest study of history will show that all of these take their shape in large part from Natural Law, and gosh by golly, Natural Law finds keen exposition in the Bible. Our forefathers were especially well versed in both, and their writings reflect the same.

Have to admit, you've assembled further testimony to an incredible amount of order that "undirectedly" arose out of . . . WHAT? Gases? Really you just don't know for sure, do you? You've got to be kidding if you expect the rest of the world to swallow that, and ludicrous if you think such a point of view deserves a monopoly in academic circles.

[FreeTheHostages]

Atoms are not conscious. The point is that consciousness is not necessary for an observation; it's an "information" thing, not a "knowledge" thing.

:) Yes and no. I will never forget, when I was but a wee little thing studying math at Harvard, when Howard Georgi showed up at the Freshman Union to discuss physics with the physics frosh over dinner. There was this very annoying (read, unlearned) Christian who kept disturbing Prof. Georgi with religious questions. After repeated polite suggestions that this was not a religious discussion were declined by the heckler, Prof. Georgi finally gave in. He said something like this: "Look, I'm a card-carrying Baptist. I believe God created the universe and for all I know [mind you, this is one of the world's best particle physicists] particles may well have karma. But there's nothing I can say about it as a physicist. There's no 'Physics of Religion' course anyone on this campus can teach. And I'm sure there are more learned Baptists than me. So if you want a discussion with a learned physicist, I'm your guy. But if you want to discuss religion, I respectfully suggest you leave."

I remember the little speech quite well. He said it in a very chipper voice. I distinctly recall his sincere reference to the possibility that particles might have karma, followed up with his suggestion that there were probably smarter Baptists about. LOL -- I doubt the "best" of Baptists would use the word "karma," but Prof. Georgi's a pretty good Baptist, I do suspect.

So it's not that particles -- or atoms -- don't have consciousness. It's that, as a scientist, there's nothing to say about it.

La la la -- just causing trouble. I totally approve of your Holy War against unlearned idiots here who mask their stupidity in the Holy Bible.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"I'm a card-carrying Baptist. I believe God created the universe and for all I know . . ."

You have just set forth an example of a Bible believing Christian who can perfectly well engage in scientific learning and discussion. I wonder how well such a declaration on Howard Georgi's part would hold up in most universities today. A good many evolutionists would dismiss him out of hand just because he is a creationist.

[Alamo-Girl]

So it's not that particles -- or atoms -- don't have consciousness. It's that, as a scientist, there's nothing to say about it.

It appears the tide has turned considerably. Roger Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind gets into the subject of quantum mechanics and consciousness rather aggressively. I included some links at 3121, but lurkers might want to cut directly to his response to critics.

Francis Crick, of double helix fame and proponent of directed panspermia (alien first cause), also takes a stab at consciousness. In The Astonishing Hypothesis he takes metaphysical naturalism "all the way" by suggesting the soul is merely a manifestation of the physical brain. From what I've read, his work is not well received except by evangelical atheists.

My two cents is the spiritual realm exists separate from the physical realm and that the brain is more like a receiver (a TV set) for the consciousness, which resides in the spiritual realm. I believe Roger Penrose is on a path that would lead to that conclusion with many of his readers, those who are not obliged to the solely materialistic worldview.

[longshadow]

If everything has been derived from, and continues to be derived from, a mass of undirected energy, then one must throw predicatability, and even science itself, out the window.

On the contrary; given the state of the Universe 15 billion years ago, the BB Model predicts the large scale structure of the Universe that we see today to a remarkable degree of accuracy.

The large scale cosmological structure we see today, that existed in the past, and which we will likely see in the future, is predicted by nothing more than an application of the rules of General Relativity and a bit of Quantum Mechanics to the initial conditions of the BB. Those conditions are inferred by empirical observation: take the current state of the large scale structure of the Universe (which is expanding), and "run the clock backwards" using the rules of Relativity and QM, and you obtain the conditions that would have existed at any time in the past.

You cannot simply dismiss an accepted scientific theory that can make remarkably good predictions that span a time frame of 15 billion years with a gratuitous sweep of the hand.

[tpaine]

Viking Law, Roman Law, English Common Law, Merchant Law, etc. You may think you've struck upon a mother lode of wild diversity in human thought, but an honest study of history will show that all of these take their shape in large part from Natural Law, and gosh by golly, Natural Law finds keen exposition in the Bible.

Of course, because the biblical law is also based upon common sense 'natural' law. - Which essentialy evolves from the golden rule, common to all mankind, learned at our mothers breast. -- "Don't bite the tit that feeds you."