Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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 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.

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."

Rather than keep arguing the point will you just agree that the phrase "Evolution, the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today, is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology" is bad science and this concept has no place in schools?

Forgive me; apparently I didn't make my point clearly enough.

In the phrase:

"Evolution, the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today, is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology"

the word "evolution" refers to "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today," as is plainly evident by the appositive set off by commas. This conforms to Webster's first definition of "evolution": "a process of formation or change; development."

The point I'm making is that the author's use of the word "evolution" in this context is DIFFERENT than when someone uses it to refer to the biological Theory of Evolution.

It's usage here is perfectly acceptable, as long as you understand it to mean "process of change" (as in "the sequence of events...." as the author puts it). And since the author spells that out via the appositive, there should be no confusion as to what he means by it.

This brings us to the last part of the sentence:

[Evolution] ..... is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology.

Now, if the author were refering to Darwin's evolution when he wrote that, I would agree with you that it makes no sense, because Darwin's Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with explaining geology or cosmology!

But he clearly is NOT using the word "evolution" in that sense, as I have elaborated upon above, and previously. He clearly means it in the sense of "a process of change," nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not in its Darwinian sense; a Theory of the Origin of the Species (or it modern incarnation).

Thus, its usage is perfectly proper; for surely you would agree that "a process of change" over time, i.e., "evolution" in the general sense, IS the common denominator, the common underpinning, the "central organizing principle" of the three scientific fields: biology, geology, and cosmology. There is simply no reasonable way to misinterpret this and think that he means that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the "central organizing principle" of geology and cosmology, as geology and cosmology are surely NOT organized around the principles of heritable traits, mutation, reproduction, and natural selection! No reasonable person could come such a conclusion.

As I noted previously to you, the fact that these sciences are organized around the central principle of "processes of change" over time is precisely why they are all referred to as "historical sciences."

So, in conclusion, I can find no reasonable basis for objecting to that phrase being used in school. One really has to work overtime to misconstrue it.

I regret having to dwell on this so much, but you clearly seem to think the author means something quite different than what is clear to me that he meant.

People who have an opportunity to work through a wide variety of materials, and drawing their own conclusions therefrom -- this is the only way I know of to really and truly "learn" anything -- are getting "educated," not "indoctrinated."

Interesting, BB. One of the deplorable trends in education is the popular notion that there is no right or wrong, only differences of opinion. Fortunately, science education, despite attacks from multiple fronts, is still about a monopoly of truth. And so it is that the best, most scientific theories are still presented as frameworks for the facts. Facts alone don't form themselves into stories. Presenting students with reems of numbers, which is what most of these facts are, would not serve anybody's interest.

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.