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."
Find a book on logic and look up "law of the excluded middle" in the logical fallacies section. The conclusion x evolved from Y does not flow from the original premise. And logically, I would be just as correct in assumning that chimps evolved from men as you would be in concluding that man evolved from chimps! Your saying that there is a "possibility" is not science - it is faith. There is no reason to believe that man evolved from chimps unless you have a faith in evolutionary theory. What happened to your pure scientific approach? What happened to "oil and water". It seems you yourself are more religious (take it on faith) than scientific when it comes to evolution.
Man did not evolve from chimps. Man is X and chimps are Y. Somewhere along the line, they have a common ancestor, I believe. A theory has been presented to the world which is the only SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has ample evidence. You can choose to ignore it because you want to stick with the safe "goddidit" approach to life, I am more inclined to see otherwise. A possible theory, backed by evidence has an amount of faith in it. Your theories have zero evidence and constitute pure faith. That's fine, but it is not for me.
The topic of this thread, and the one to which I referred, is Biological Evolution, i.e., the Origin of the Species.
I'm not sure how you go from "atoms can collapse wave functions" to "science doesn't need scientists". Scientists aren't there to play a metaphysical role, but a practical one: humans want to develop predictive mathematical models of natural processes, the better to exploit them (technology, in other words). Our job isn't merely to collapse wavefunctions: mathematical models and technological widgets are "knowledge" things.
In principle, experiments aren't necessary for knowledge: whatever can happen is compulsory, so if you wait long enough, you will eventually observe every "special case". In practice, humans are an impatient lot, so we set up those special cases to see what will happen. We start out by watching apples fall, but then take to dropping things because we won't wait until next harvest time. We watch cosmic rays leave traces in nuclear emulsions, but build particle accelerators when we realize how very long it would take to catch a Higgs particle that way.
And I'm sure you were. But it can't be disputed that the phrase is often used -- correctly -- to mean "a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena."
Your repudiation of that concept actually advances the debate but it doesn't hurt to continually point out its inherent silliness.
I agree with you that God is not bound by any of our physical laws, space/time, dimensions, geometery, origins, etc. In fact, my "theme" on these threads has always been that time is part of the creation and not something in which the Creator exists.
We cannot measure Him by any means in the physical realm. That is why - in the physical realm, at the moment of origin - He appears to us as the Hebrew word Ayn Sof describes - infinite and null.
You believe. Well, how can you prove me wrong if I say chimps evolved from man? From the premise (x is similar to y in z), this is also a possibility.
A theory has been presented to the world which is the only SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has ample evidence.
I have never seen any of the evidence you speak of. Where is it? All the evidence I have ever seen is bogus, but is given credibility with the addition of the "just so" stories (fantasies from the minds of evolutionists). How is it scientific if it is taken on faith and not evidence?
A possible theory, backed by evidence has an amount of faith in it. Your theories have zero evidence and constitute pure faith. That's fine, but it is not for me.
I thought faith and science were like "oil and water". It seems your definition of science is still evolving (pardon the pun).
Ummm, I don't think so. On what basis do you make such an outlandish statement. The law of statistical averages and science of probability comes into play here.
Of course. What do you think I meant by "long enough"?
You tell me the probability of a thing occurring, and the precision to which you wish to measure the thing, and I can calculate "long enough" for you.
The problem is that the universe is finite (15 billions years?) - you do not have infinite time for all special cases. Some "special cases" cannot possibly occur even within the timeframe of the age of the universe, e.g. the self-assembly of a protein molecule for example.
LOL, so that's where you were going with that.
I wasn't going in that direction, myself. Since you bring it up, however, I'll point out that much larger molecules than proteins self-assemble on a very short timescale, so you might want to re-think how you calculate those probabilities. The science of doing that is called chemistry.
What is the basis for keeping belief in God and science separate? I will tell you - it is purely philosophical! The FACT is (if you know your history) that the biggest scientific discoveries in science were produced by men with Christian worldviews (pre-Darwin!). Ever hear of Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe, Keppler, Bacon? These men were able to make their discoveries because they had the CORRECT view of the universe, i.e. that it is ordered and rational. This view was borne out of their judeo-Christian worldview. That is precisely why the biggest scientific discoveries were made in the West and not in China or Africa. Since that day, however, philosophy has shifted. Now, as a result of the naturalistic philsosphical bias thoughout all academia in the west, science and Christianity have been separated, it is now dogma that the two do not mix. Just because YOU say science and Christianity do not mix does not make it a fact, it simply makes it YOUR PHILOSPHY.
See my post 3178. Prove that God doesn't exist! YOu take it on faith! Are we clear yet?
I suppose only evolutionists can understand science? They have a monopoly on good scientific investigation, right? Again, see my post 3178. YOu ask me to prove the existence of God, but you cannot even prove to me how a protein molecule self-assembled (essential prerequisite for naturalistic evolution), or how information is added to the genome through NS+mutation. I must conclude that in order to understand YOUR brand of science, I would have to understand your worldview first because that is where your view of science comes from.
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.