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."
If I understand you correctly, the ability to be conceptually falsified is a requirement for scientific theory in general, including evolution theory.
My interloctor made a statement about "universal gravity", not pragmatic local gravity.
Well, that 'pragmatic local gravity' (never heard it called that!) is a pretty essential part of the theory of gravity itself. Take that part away and it is just nonsense. So my point is that there are certain universal laws which cannot be denied and are indeed provable. Gravity is a fact of life, has never been disproven, and is easilly ascertainable. The 'fact' of evolution though is nowhere to be found.
What's with the pictures in these supposed children's science books showing at one end a monkey and at the other a man? And in the sequence one can clearly see a neanderthal, supposedly already shewn to not be related to homo sapiens. And let's not mention the pictures of "missing links" never ever unearthed. Fact or fiction?
Yea, you hope anyway. Miller wrote an entire book about Behe, Dembski, and Johnson: "Finding Darwin's God". And it is far from vague, it is referenced up to its gills, and you will find the relevant references as to when and where, exactly, Behe's predictions were contradicted BEFORE Behe published.
You continue to attack the man instead of refuting the facts. The fact is that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has yet to be disproven. Your buddy Miller has tried, including with his recent plagiarism about the secretory system which was discussed on these threads over a year ago. It's an old story which he is telling and not giving credit to the original author. Of course that theory of the secretory system itself was discredited as a refutation of Behe's assertion that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex almost as soon as it was published. However, evolutionists having nothing possible to refute irreducible complexity, keep recycling the same nonsense over and over long after it has been shown to be false. Ken Miller is very good at that and while he may have a scientific PHD, he has never accomplished anything valuable in the realm of science himself. He is just a popularizer of evolution, not a real scientist. If he were a real scientist he would not have published such retreaded nonsense from a internet blog of all places!
So? Is the disclaimer false? We're back to square one here.
Interesting that to evolutionists the truth of a statement does not make it valid for publication! Sorta tells you a lot about evolution and evolutionists.
Evolutionists cannot do that. While they deny that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution, there is nary an evolutionist on this thread which denies abiogenesis. The reason for that is that evolution is scientific materialism. That is why Marx thanked Darwin for his theory. If evolutionists admit that God created life, then how can they deny that He also created man? How can they deny that God created butterflies which develop in such a fantastic way? They could not. Evolution can only be valid if the existence of God is denied. This is why evolutionists fight tooth and nail over every single minutae that might disprove it. They cannot admit God into any discussion because then the whole purpose of their theory, the denial of religion is rendered null and void.
He probably has not had time to read it. You have to realize how much time this placemarkering stuff takes! Let's make it easy for him and post it right here:
Biogenesis
The principle that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material. Compare spontaneous generation.
A Dictionary of Biology, Oxford University Press, © Market House Books Ltd 2000 Book information
But a theory is only true while there is no evidence against it. When such evidence is found the theory has been falsified and gets thrown into the garbabe bin of history.
This has happened to evolution numerous times and continues to happen today. All the greatest discoveries in biology have served to disprove evolution. Mendel genetics made the transmission of new traits almost impossible, DNA made them completely impossible, the interrelatedness of DNA shows it to be utterly and irretrievably impossible. The only thing evolutionists have to counteract this is a few scattered bones (which after 150 years of digging are still far from convincing) but without showing scientifically the creation of new traits, their theory must be considered scientifically false.
But read this argument carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution, and by elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong. There are at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced by a series of small modifications: 1) Improvements become necessities, 2) Loss of scaffolding 3) Duplication and divergence.
Let's take each one separately, looking at the bacterial flagellum example:
1. Improvements become necessities - this is a nonsense argument. What was being improved? What happened to the previous functioning? Moreover, how can 40 different genes change RANDOMLY to achieve a specific goal? This argument does not answer the question.
2. Scaffolding - is interesting but also false. The proposition is that all 40+ genes had a prior purpose which was somehow lost and then all the 40+ genes worked together to create a new complex system. This implies design also and is therefore not a refutation. It does not take away the problem that all 40+ genes needed to act in concord and develop in concord to achieve a purpose.
3. Duplication and divergence - again this takes time and to propose the co-evolution of some 40+ genes towards a common purpose is utterly ridiculous.
In short, the development of the bacterial flagellum requires both intelligent desing and the co-evolution of 40+ genes towards a single goal. This totally contradicts evolutionary theory in both its Darwinian and Gouldian forms. Let's also remember that what drives evolution is (supposedly) fitness. Throughout all these modifications each one of the 40+ genes posited to have been evolving (but for which no evidence of evolution is ever given) had to become more fit AT WHAT IT WAS DOING and then suddenly switch over to become an integral part of a closely knit system. This poses two problems - what happened to the 40+ functions that were supposedly being made more fit and how did these 40+ genes evolve towards a different goal by becoming more fit at what they were previously doing? Clearly such a proposition is utterly ridiculous as even Darwin, in the quote cited by Behe, admits.
Let me also say that while this example is the most famous one of something which could not have arisen by gradual evolution, there are many, many more. I would cite for example the different modes of reproduction in nature. How can a species change its mode of reproduction gradually? Utterly impossible since it needs to continue to reproduce while changing over. A good example is mammals. How can you change over from reproducing through egg-laying to reproducing by live birth? This takes an enormous change in both the genotype and phenotype of a species and is utterly impossible to achieve by any kind of random stochastic, non-directed process.
Wrong on BOTH counts, This debate is about whether Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, to say it's not, is intellectual dishonesty, least, or outright Lying at worst.
The intellectual dishonesty is totally the evolutionists. A theory which has been disproven by scientific facts is not a legitimate theory no matter how many people say it is. The evidence for evolution, which in 1859 relied mostly on scientific ignorance has been totally discredited by now and if you wish to discuss that instead of semantics and constant repetition of the mantra that 'evolution is science' I will show that is has indeed been scientifically disproved.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
Yes, and you've had it wrong all along. The above is terribly worded, and gives the wrong impression. Every creationist in the world has grabbed onto it and has distorted the meaning of Pasteur's work. It's kind of like a liberal claiming that the "general welfare" expression in the constitution authorizes the welfare state.
Think about it. How could Pasteur, working more than a century ago, have done what you claim he did? How could he have proven that life absolutely cannot arise from non-living matter? Where is this work of his written up? Don't show me sloppily-worded definitions of "biogenesis." Show me Pasteur's work on molds. Then you'll see what I'm talking about.
Pasteur showed why food spoiled. That's all. This has been blown wildly out of proportion, spun, jazzed up, and lied about, and now we have the "law of biogenesis" which is allegedly blessed by Pasteur's name, proving what creationists would love to prove but cannot. Pasteur only disproved the weird theory of his time called "spontaneous generation" which was about mold, not the origin of life.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating this simple stuff over and over again. (For some, yes, but not for you.) I know you're bright. I want you to ponder this and then let me know whether you get it or not.
Indeed. A fool might even conclude that the word "question" means different things to physicists and mathematicians. ;^)
Then perhaps these scientists should inform certain textbook authors of the tentative nature of evolutionist theory, because the textbooks I've seen boldly insert evolutionist assumptions as if they are fact. "Eight million years ago yada yada yada . . . ."
They do not even have the intellectual honesty to insert the word "perhaps" into the picture. They fight tooth and nail (in the courts no less) when it is proposed that their theories should be treated as just that: theories. Educated guesses. Possibilities. One of many ways to understand the world around us.
So evolutionists continue to fill the world with their propaganda while holding supernatural possibilities in contempt. They have fine company with Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin.
As far as I'm concerned, a small disclaimer label in evolutionist textbooks isn't enough. Leave the books alone. Let them enjoy the open ridicule and shame they deserve.
Wells Vindicated on Multiple Counts
|
TEXTBOOK
|
#1
|
#2
|
#3
|
#4
|
#5
|
#6
|
#7
|
#8
|
#9
|
#10
|
|
ICON
|
||||||||||
|
Miller-Urey
|
D
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Darwin's tree of life
|
F
|
D
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Vertebrate limb homology
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
D
|
D
|
|
Haeckel's embryos
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Archaeopteryx
|
C
|
B
|
D
|
D
|
D
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
|
Peppered moths
|
X
|
N/A
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
|
Darwin's finches
|
F
|
D
|
D
|
X
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
D
|
F
|
F
|
|
OVERALL GRADE
|
D-
|
D+
|
D-
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
F
|
List of Textbooks Evaluated
(All have copyright dates of 1998 or later. Books are listed alphabetically by first author's last name.)
1. Alton Biggs, Chris Kapicka & Linda Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-02-825431-7
2. Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece & Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology, Fifth Edition (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1999). ISBN 0-8053-6573-7
3. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998). ISBN 0-87893-189-9
4. Burton S. Guttman, Biology, (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-22366-3
5. George B. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, Annotated Teacher's Edition (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998). ISBN 0-03-016724-8
6. Sylvia Mader, Biology, Sixth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-697-34080- 5
7. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology, Fifth Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000). ISBN 0-13-436265-9
8. Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, Fifth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-35353-2
9. William D. Schraer & Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life , Seventh Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-435086-3
10. Cecie Starr & Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Eighth Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998). ISBN 0-534-53001-X.
Specific Evaluation Criterion
In general, an "A" requires full disclosure of the truth, discussion of relevant scientific controversies, and a recognition that Darwin's theory -- like all scientific theories -- might have to be revised or discarded if it doesn't fit the facts. An "F" indicates that the textbook uncritically relies on logical fallacy, dogmatically treats a theory as an unquestionable fact, or blatantly misrepresents published scientific evidence.
The Miller-Urey Experiment
Many modern scientists believe that living cells arose from chemical building-blocks that formed on the early Earth. In 1953, Stanley Miller used an electric spark to simulate lightning in a mixture of gasses thought to resemble the Earth's primitive atmosphere, and produced some of the chemical building-blocks of life. The experiment is pictured in many biology textbooks to show that scientists now understand an important early step in the origin of life. But scientists determined over a decade ago that the Earth's primitive atmosphere was probably nothing like the mixture of gasses Miller used, and now acknowledge that the origin of life's building-blocks remains unexplained.
D= includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; but the accompanying text explicitly points out that this was probably not the case (merely listing other gasses, and leaving it to the student to spot the discrepancy, is not sufficient); may leave the student with the impression that the experiment (or some variant of it) demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.
F = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.
Darwin's Tree of Life
Darwin believed that all living things are modified descendants of one or a few original forms. Most biology textbooks show the branching-tree pattern that would result from such "descent with modification," and tell students that it is so thoroughly confirmed by the fossil and molecular evidence that it may be called a "scientific fact." But the fossil record of the "Cambrian explosion" shows that the major groups of animals appeared at about the same time -- a "lawn" rather than a tree; and recent molecular evidence suggests a "tangled thicket" instead of the branching pattern of Darwin's tree of life.
D = assumes the truth of universal common ancestry without questioning it (and may call it a "fact"); mentions the Cambrian explosion in the body of the text (briefly mentioning it in a note at the end of the chapter, without explaining what it is, is not sufficient), but does not discuss the problem it poses for Darwinian evolution.
F = assumes the truth of universal common ancestry without questioning it (and may call it a "fact"); does not even mention the Cambrian explosion.
Homology in Vertebrate Limbs
A bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand all contain bones that are structurally similar. Before Darwin, biologists called this "homology," and considered it evidence for a common design, but Darwin attributed it to a common ancestor. Modern Darwinists have re-defined homology as similarity due to common ancestry, but now homology cannot serve as evidence for common ancestry without arguing in a circle. Many biology textbooks use circular reasoning anyway: We know that two features are homologous because they come from a common ancestor, and we know they come from a common ancestor because they're homologous.
D = defines homology as similarity of structure and position, and cites it as evidence for common ancestry; may attribute homology to similar genes or similar developmental pathways, but fails to mention that the evidence does not fit the claim.
F = defines homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then engages in circular reasoning by citing homology as evidence for common ancestry.
Haeckel's Embryos
Darwin believed that all animals with backbones (including humans) evolved from fish-like ancestors, and he thought the best evidence for this was that the early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are similar to fish embryos. Many biology textbooks carry drawings (originally by Ernst Haeckel) to illustrate this, and claim that human embryos possess "gill slits." But embryologists have known for over a century that such drawings are false, and that early embryos of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals do NOT resemble fish. Human embryos pass through a stage when they have wrinkles in their necks, but they never have "gill slits."
D = uses actual photos rather than Haeckel's drawings, but chooses those which best fit the theory; fails to mention that earlier stages are dissimilar, and claims that early similarities in vertebrate embryos are evidence for common ancestry and Darwinian evolution; may call pharyngeal pouches "gill slits."
F = uses Haeckel's drawings (or a re-drawn version of them) without mentioning the dissimilarity of earlier stages; claims that early similarities in vertebrate embryos are evidence for common ancestry and Darwinian evolution; may call pharyngeal pouches "gill slits."
Archaeopteryx - The Missing Link
Darwin believed that modern species were linked in the past by innumerable transitional forms, but when he published his theory in 1859 those transitional links were missing. The discovery of Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with reptile-like teeth, helped to persuade many people that Darwin's theory was true, and many biology textbooks still feature Archaeopteryx as the "missing link" between reptiles and birds. Yet paleontologists no longer believe that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of modern birds, and its own ancestors are the subject of heated controversy. The "missing link" between reptiles and birds, it seems, is still missing.
D = presents Archaeopteryx as the transitional link between reptiles (or dinosaurs) and modern birds; does not point out that modern birds are probably not descended from it, but at least hints at the fact that there is a controversy over its ancestry or its transitional status.
F = presents Archaeopteryx as the transitional link between reptiles (or dinosaurs) and modern birds; does not point out that modern birds are probably not descended from it, and does not even hint at the fact that there is a controversy over its ancestry or its transitional status.
Peppered Moths
Darwin had no direct evidence for natural selection, the principal mechanism in his theory of evolution. Experiments in the 1950s seemed to provide the missing evidence by showing that light-colored peppered moths were more easily seen and eaten by predatory birds on pollution-darkened tree trunks, leaving mostly dark-colored moths to survive and reproduce. Many biology textbooks carry photographs of light and dark peppered moths on tree trunks to illustrate this famous story. Yet biologists have known for over a decade that the story has problems. Among other things, peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and the textbook photographs have been staged.
D = uses staged photos without mentioning that they misrepresent the natural situation; but the accompanying text at least hints at the fact that there are problems with Kettlewell's experiments or the classical story.
F = uses staged photos without mentioning that they misrepresent the natural situation; describes Kettlewell's experiments as a demonstration of natural selection, without mentioning their flaws or problems with the classical story.
Darwin's Finches
Many biology textbooks claim that finches on the Galapagos Islands, whose beak sizes are correlated with the foods they eat, helped to convince Darwin of evolution by natural selection in 1835. But the legend of "Darwin's finches" was actually contrived a century later. Some textbooks also tell students that a slight increase in the average size of finch beaks, observed after a severe drought in the 1970s, shows how natural selection could produce a new species in only two hundred years. But the textbooks fail to mention that the change was reversed when the rains returned, and no net evolution occurred.
D = describes the Galapagos finches as a good example of adaptive radiation (the origin of species by natural selection); but points out either that selection on finch beaks oscillates between wet and dry years or that the finches did not play an important role in the formulation of Darwin's theory.
F = describes the Galapagos finches as a good example of adaptive radiation (the origin of species by natural selection); but fails to mention that selection on finch beaks oscillates between wet and dry years, and implies that the finches played an important role in the formulation of Darwin's theory.
and…
“Douglas Futuyma's text (Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition) he writes: "By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."
" Purvis, Orians and Heller, (in Life: The Science of Biology, 4th edition) tell students that, "the living world is constantly evolving without any goals.. . .evolutionary change is not directed."
Fairly new articles:
From the bone of a horse, a new idea for aircraft structures
Yes, quite: confusion arises; misunderstandings ensue; overly-confident haughty statements beginning with phrases like "I can assure you that..." are carelessly tossed about; and even when the confusion is exposed and cleared up in a sincere and polite way which should put the damn thing to rest, boring chauvinistic sentiments about My Field vs. Their Field are hid behind.
That is indeed what happens when some piece of terminology is used in two different fields of study. Which is too bad.
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.