Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

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."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution; rades
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,121-3,1403,141-3,1603,161-3,180 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: viaveritasvita
OH MY! The whole 1953 Gish whale thang was proved wrong??

Not to make a "late hit," but I should have pointed out something earlier. Colbert's 1953 lament about the lack of any sign of fossil history for whales stems from the necessary prediction of evolutionary theory that intermediate forms must once have lived. They may not have been preserved in the fossil record, but they must have once lived. The lack of any such finding to Colbert's day and into the late 1970s thus amounted to an unfulfilled prediction. (There were fossil whales, some of which had features such as vestigial hind legs marking them as more primitive than modern whales. All were clearly completely aquatic, however.)

The finding of Pakicetus (terrestrial) and Ambulocetus (about as aquatic as a crocodile) in the Tethys Sea fossil beds of Pakistan and India fulfilled the prediction for such forms. Just another case of a pattern of events often observed by now.

  1. An observational gap exists in the phylogenetic tree of life.
  2. Creation/ID crows over the gap. (Holes in the evidence are trumpeted as holes in the historical process that produced the evidence.)
  3. Mainstream science doggedly keeps looking.
  4. Specimens are found to plug the gap.
  5. Mainstream science announces a fulfilled prediction.
  6. Creation/ID divides its responses among:
    • That's a (whale, bird, man, whatever), just another kind of (whale, bird, man, whatever)!
    • That's some funny extinct animal. Where's the proof that modern (whales, birds, men, whatevers) came from that?
    • God could have done that, too.
  7. Creation/ID resumes crowing over whatever gaps are seen to remain, depending upon the rebuttal employed above.
And, yes, despite Gish trying hard in 1994 to convince the flock that Paki- and Ambulo- were just some ancient freak creatures with no relation to anything else, it's 2003 now. Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are still fossil whales as far as mainstream science goes.

For more fulfilled predictions, check Is Evolution Science?

3,141 posted on 01/06/2003 8:22:55 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3043 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
At the same time, the skittishness of evolutionists whenever the subject of creationism is brought up has me wondering why they are so jumpy.

Perhaps we should give equal consideration to all theories -- that the earth once revolved around Saturn, for example.

I personally think a good approach would be to present the evidence in a historical context and present the thinking of the original people who found the evidence.

There are those in science who seem to have an engineering temperament -- let's get directly to the formulas and the cookboks -- and who see little value in arguing about belief systems. Then there are those who have no use for formulas and want to engage in storytelling. We have both types, and more, right here on this thread.

3,142 posted on 01/06/2003 8:24:06 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3104 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Hmm, intersting. If you like Penrose, I do recommend -- I firmly do love -- Frank Wilczek's Longing for the Harmonies. (Written with his wife, Betsy Devine, I believe.) It's a great book written by a leading particle physicist (and uncle to I think one of the next generation's best physicsts, string theorest Alfred Shapere).
3,143 posted on 01/06/2003 8:30:23 AM PST by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3138 | View Replies]

To: All
Wow, gulp, post 3,144. I didn't know we could get this high. I peer nervously over the edge -- we're definitely on the edge of something. Will those of us who generally just lurk in the thread be the last to fall in the chasm?
3,144 posted on 01/06/2003 8:32:51 AM PST by FreeTheHostages
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3143 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
Will those of us who generally just lurk in the thread be the last to fall in the chasm?

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." -Dante

3,145 posted on 01/06/2003 8:39:58 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3144 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
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.

There is currently no evidence for any other point of view (note: arguments from astonishment do not constitute evidence).

3,146 posted on 01/06/2003 8:43:12 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3135 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Methinks you are confusing "order" with "design." One does not presuppose the other.
3,147 posted on 01/06/2003 8:47:13 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3130 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Methinks you are confusing "order" with "design." One does not presuppose the other.

One glance at a Picasso should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of the notion that "design" necessarily implies "order," while natural formations like "The Old Man in the Mountain" and the "Giant's Causeway" should suffice to show that "order" can arise in the absence of "design."

3,148 posted on 01/06/2003 8:53:19 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3147 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
For more fulfilled predictions ...

The biggest -- and to me the best -- example is the hoary old claim of the creationists: "You haven't found the missing link!" This is important for two reasons: (a) creationists made their one big prediction that no intermediate (sub-human) species existed; and (b) evolution predicted that such must have existed, and that perhaps one day their fossils would be found. A perfect setup for the creationists to test their "scientific" theory.

But now that this one crucial cornerstone of creationism has been shattered (i.e. special creation of man with no intermediate species), they still won't give up. They never do; they never will. And they never make predictions any more -- except for one, which is technically outside of evolution theory, but not "creation science." They all predict that life can never be generated from non-living material. If that little trick ever gets accomplished, and the creationists are then batting 0 for 2, they still won't give up (that's my prediction).

3,149 posted on 01/06/2003 8:58:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3141 | View Replies]

To: B. Rabbit
The answer may surprise you coming from the scientific world: nobody knows for sure right now.

There are only 4 possible answers to the origins of the universe: It sprang from NOTHING (impossible since nothing cannot produce anything); it has existed eternally (impossible because of the dimension of "time" and "entropy" - the universe cannot "wind down" forever); it is an illusion (let's not even go there since this is an indefensible position); or, it was created by a creator out of nothing. Take your pick. Which is it?

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.

I already pointed out that this is a fallacy in logic (law of the excluded middle). The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. (By the way, you and Donh need to get together - he said no evolutionist ever made such a suggestion as this).

3,150 posted on 01/06/2003 8:59:30 AM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3132 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The finding of Pakicetus (terrestrial) and Ambulocetus (about as aquatic as a crocodile) in the Tethys Sea fossil beds of Pakistan and India fulfilled the prediction for such forms.

Yes, and I'll bet these finds are absolutely conclusive, no possiblity of misinterpreting or reading into the find!

3,151 posted on 01/06/2003 9:03:19 AM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3141 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
They all predict that life can never be generated from non-living material. If that little trick ever gets accomplished, and the creationists are then batting 0 for 2, they still won't give up (that's my prediction).

We've been over this ground with g3k, among others. They have already moved the barracades in anticipation of laboratory created life. It will, you see, be the product of design.

In war this is known as a pre-emptive counterattack.

3,152 posted on 01/06/2003 9:06:33 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3149 | View Replies]

To: B. Rabbit
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.

If it is not certain (and logically it is erroneous), then you take it on faith. So much for your statements about science...REAL science is about observation and repeatability, is it not? Based on the pathetic conclusion in the statement X and Y have a common ancestor, or X evolved from Y, I could just as easily conclude from the similarity that chimps evolved from humans!

3,153 posted on 01/06/2003 9:08:11 AM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3132 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
There are only 4 possible answers to the origins of the universe: It sprang from NOTHING (impossible since nothing cannot produce anything); it has existed eternally (impossible because of the dimension of "time" and "entropy" - the universe cannot "wind down" forever); it is an illusion (let's not even go there since this is an indefensible position); or, it was created by a creator out of nothing. Take your pick. Which is it?

Why do you get to make the answers to this multiple choice test? Your refutation of the first option (cannot spring from nothing) is also a refutation of the fourth option which you believe to be true. If nothing cannot produce anything, why does that theory go out the window for God? What did God spring out from? Why is it easier to assume that it is impossible that the universe came into being without the need for a God but it is possible that a God sprang out of nowhere without the need for a precursor? What was God doing before-hand?

I agree with you however that the third option should not even be included, as it gets us nowhere...

3,154 posted on 01/06/2003 9:10:20 AM PST by B. Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3150 | View Replies]

To: FreeTheHostages
Thank you so much for the reply and the recommendation!

I'm sorry it has taken so long to get back to you, but I have been reading reviews on the book and it is clearly a "must read" for me because I am one of those who are drawn to the harmonics.

3,155 posted on 01/06/2003 9:11:47 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3143 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; viaveritasvita
The Theory of Evolution is concerned with the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life, and certainly not the Origin of the universe.

Again, that depends as to how the phrase is being used and to which "theory of evolution" one is referring. The "theory of evolution" is commonly used as an all encompassing explanation of the developement of the universe and that use is one of the dictionary definitions of evolution.

3,156 posted on 01/06/2003 9:13:36 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3087 | View Replies]

To: B. Rabbit
Er, we do not necessary impose the physical laws of our universe on other theoretical alternate universes ---- so, why would you think that God is bound by any of our physical laws, space/time, dimensions, geometery, origins, etc.?
3,157 posted on 01/06/2003 9:19:04 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3154 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
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.

I'm not sure what you're saying, here, but I read it as, "the fact that nature operates according to inviolable principles is proof of design."

It seems that the creationists want to eat their cake and have it, too. It used to be that everything required the active hand of God: even the planets were moved in their courses by teams of angels pushing them by hand. Then the Enlightenment came, which allowed men to see that much of nature was "a machine that would go of itself", and the faithful had to content themselves with a "God of the gaps". Now that the most cherished gaps are closing, all they will ultimately have left to say is, "See? I told you: the lack of gaps is proof of God."

That suits me just fine. That was my starting point, as a Deist. The universe--creation, if you will--is seamless. God or no God, the universe will admit of a self-consistent, self-sufficient, self-contained, natural, materialistic, and simple explanation right down to its very core. It could not have been otherwise: if it hadn't "simply existed" that way, a truly omnipotent God would necessarily have done it that way. Anything less would have been an imperfect failure.

3,158 posted on 01/06/2003 9:20:33 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3130 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
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. -ME

I already pointed out that this is a fallacy in logic (law of the excluded middle). The conclusion has nothing to do with the premise. (By the way, you and Donh need to get together - he said no evolutionist ever made such a suggestion as this).

This has not been refuted. Using only the mathematics of the above, it is not unreasonable to see a possible connection of origin between X and Y. It is not proof, as you say, but there is a possibility. Explain where your "theory of the excluded middle" is located on a prominent science page so that I can see for myself whether it applies.

3,159 posted on 01/06/2003 9:20:49 AM PST by B. Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3150 | View Replies]

To: B. Rabbit
Why do you get to make the answers to this multiple choice test? Your refutation of the first option (cannot spring from nothing) is also a refutation of the fourth option which you believe to be true.

If you have another possibility for the origin of the universe, let's have it.

God isn't nothing - He is something and someone - the causative agent (remember cause and effect?). How do you figure God is nothing? He is nothing because you refuse to admit his existence! It is a personal philosophical belief on your part - you presuppose God's non-existence, and then assume everything came from natural and material causes. But no matter how many times you state it, the fact will remain that "God" and "Nothing" are not synonymous. On the other hand, nothing is really nothing - it is not anything at all. Since nothing is not anything at all, it cannot produce anything. (simple logic).

Your misunderstand the nature of God. God didn't spring from anything. He is the creator - self-existent and eternal, outside of time. Your refusal to consider that possibility simply shows that you have a bias against God. If God created all natural laws, that makes God lead scientist.

3,160 posted on 01/06/2003 9:23:40 AM PST by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3154 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,121-3,1403,141-3,1603,161-3,180 ... 7,021-7,032 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson