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."
We were talking about worth and value, not right or wrong. Worth and value are purely subjective. The two groupings are not synonymous. Logically, you can be wrong because you haven't made a valid argument for your position. For example, you have yet to show me how value and worth may be quantified. Other properties of an object can be so quantified, therefore it must be possible to do so for value and worth if those are valid properties of an object. I have shown you, however, that value can be entirely subjective and such subjectivity actually forms the basis for economic systems.
In other words, I have given evidence for my position. You have simply naysayed my position, which is not evidence for your position. We find this situation in the over-arching crevo arguments; the evos give evidence to support their positions and the creos attack that evidence without ever supplying evidence for their particular positions.
It is doubtful to me that we are aware, nor can we become aware, of how/what electromechanical states "feel like" (if that is an acceptable synonym for "seem"). The point is if they are "there" at all, we never notice them per se. What we notice and feel are the music of flutes, the color and form of apples, etc.
Actually, I have answered your question. A property intrinsic to an object and observable can be measured. Other objective properties of an object can be measured accurately (height, weight, color). In other words I can objectively quantify these properties. How do I objectively quanitfy worth or value? I have also pointed out that worth and value of an object appear to change depending upon the observer (what you might find valuable I might consider crap). This is the definition of subjective. You will not find observations of height or weight or color differing from one observer to another, meaning these are intrinsic to the object and hence objective.
It makes no difference. Let me say it again. I am now applying the statement to the specific topic of human value. You said human value is subjective to each person. Now, I say: If one's view of human value is subjective, then I must be right, and you must be right. No one can be wrong in subjectivism. Don't you see that? Therefore, when I argue that human value is objective, I CAN'T BE WRONG, because in your world, whatever view I hold is right under the rules of subjectivism. You can only admit that I can't be wrong, EVEN if I hold that human value is objective, because I hold that view subjectively from your perspective.
Besides, you can't pick and choose which moral precepts are subjective - either they all are or they all aren't. You would then be inconsistent as well as illogical.
Yawn. You did not answer. You need to prove empiricism empirically. You haven't done that. How do you prove that all reality is measurable? You would have to be all knowing to know that all reality is measurable because you would have to be aware of all things. Indeed, you would have to be God to prove it. And you, sir, are not God.
Atheist values . . . thought - - - in America ? ? ?
. . . conservatism ? ? ?
What illogic?
Objective: Properties which can be quantified empirically through observation or experimentation. Or, in a logical If-Then Statement:
Subjective: Properties which are imparted to an object by the observer.
For example, height, weight, color, orientation are objective properties as they can be measured.
Value and worth are subjective properties as they are imparted to the object by the observer. For example, I value my dogs highly, however, the drivers on my street value my dogs very little as they've managed to kill several who've escaped my yard. Obviously, there is no objective "dog value" involved here. I have imparted more value to my dogs than the drivers have.
Show me a method of objectively quantifying the qualities "value" or "worth" and you will make a logical, certifiable case. Failing that, saying that I'm wrong and illogical does not make your case.
The word "value" means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
It appears that value (legally and objectively) is the highest number in a population of like things --- but that also could turn subjective in a legal sense if the population shifts.
Yes, in this case the property is VALUE OF HUMAN BEINGs. In essence, you are saying humans have no value until you assign it. That is subjectivism. However, I assign MY OWN VALUE under these rules. How can I be wrong then, no matter what type of value I assign to human beings? I can't. From my subjective perspective (speaking form your point of view), all humans beings are valuable because their worth is assigned by God. This is my subjective view, therefore it cannot be wrong. Your argument is self-refuting. YOu are also using the fallacy of equivocation again on the meaning of the word subjective. For our purposes, Subjective means reality is confined to the observer, and that is precisely what you meant when you said that human value is according to each person as he assigns it. You are now attempting to use subjective in another sense and I will not let you. You are trapped like a drowning rat.
Value and worth are subjective properties as they are imparted to the object by the observer. For example, I value my dogs highly, however, the drivers on my street value my dogs very little as they've managed to kill several who've escaped my yard. Obviously, there is no objective "dog value" involved here. I have imparted more value to my dogs than the drivers have.
Yes and Pol Pot, the observer, imparted no value to humans and slaughtered them as he would your dogs. But he can't be wrong in your despressing little world. If you call him morally wrong, you are imparting a universal value on human life, and would contradict yourself. You can only say that he acted subjectively according to the worth he assigned human beings. I find it very telling that many atheists are also marxists and communists - they fit like a glove! The practical implications of your philosophy can be found in the killing fields of Cambodia.
I did. I have shown you what logic I followed to arrive at my conclusion that "value" and "worth" are subjective. I have yet to see a comparable argument from you that they are objective. As far as I can tell, you do not have an argument, you simply nay-say mine. That, of course, does not work to fortify your position, even if you had any valid criticisms of my argument (which I also have yet to see).
You can't measure love as you measure height and weight or color - those are observed. You cannot observe human rights, you cannot observe the proposition that "all men are created equal" - this is in the category of of the abstract! You are really lost - you are mixing categories - another logical fallacy. Man, don't you tire of your logical fallacies?
How does one measure the value of a human being? Are orientals wrong because they place a lower value on human life than you? How about Moslems? Do you value human life so much that you would never relieve someone of it? Or do you qualify your valuation? Do you make a distinction between "innocent" and "not innocent" in your valuation?
How does one objectively measure "value" or "worth?"
You have done no such thing. You have not proven empiricism itself. You must prove the method before you can use it. Your method (empiricism) has been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
I have yet to see a comparable argument from you that they are objective.
Two proofs:
(1)I hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT - that all men are created equal. It is a self-evident truth which also conforms to human experience throughout human history.
(2) Your system is logically excluded, that only leaves mine since there is no other possibility. Your position is antithetical to human experience. Your position makes man a big fat zero. Your position excludes the mannishness of man. Next time you hug your family, just remember that the love you feel is nothing more than a random chemical process in your brain - but you can't do that can you! You cannot live your philosophy! That is the dichotomy you and all other atheists face every day of their lives. They live life as if it has meaning, but meaning can only come if there is a God. Without God, in a naturalistic universe, there is no meaning. The subjective meaning (not meaning at all) that you speak of is really a cruel joke played on you by natural selection. You are fooled into believing things have meaning when they can't possibly. Personality cannot come from non-personality (from random molecules that came together by chance) - that makes you a non-person and all others in your life non-persons. Face it, you are no more valuable than a rock in your system. All attempts to say otherwise are mere folly. Materialism is empty, devoid, it is time+energy+matter+chance and that is ALL IT IS. As far as I can tell, you do not have an argument, you simply nay-say mine. That, of course, does not work to fortify your position, even if you had any valid criticisms of my argument (which I also have yet to see).
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.