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."
How did I miss this comment?! Slavery is directly in opposition with the absolute truth that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"; liberty is a universal "right", remember? Therefore, how can slavery be a cultural issue? Man, you are thoroughly confused and mixed up, and the reason is that you have no true moral compass. When you finally see and understand that God is the source or absolute morals and rights, only then will you be able to argue coherently on this topic.
This was easily circumvented by asserting that Africans are subhuman.
There were arguments based on "science" and arguments based on religion -- Africans were descendents of Ham and were being punished by God.
All of these arguments seem absurd now, but they were believed in their time. Which goes to show that evil people will find a way to rationalize their deeds, using whatever the prevailing ideology or theology happens to be.
If God cannot declare as moral an immoral act, then morality must be a thing that exists independently of God. I and others have repeatedly tried to make this point, but I suspect we'd have better luck stapling jello to the wall.
If the matter of the existence of God was unequivocally put to rest tomorrow, my life would be affected not at all. I would continue to live in the exact same way. How about you?
The DoI says that rights are endowed by a "Creator." Why are you so sure that the Creator mentioned is the one worshipped by you? It is sufficient that individuals have rights as a function of their existence. If you wish to label that phenomenon God, feel free.
False proposition, therefore a false conclusion. Morals are not "declared," but rather flow directly from God's character and person. God cannot go against His own character as God is immutable. So, if you want to make up your own false god, then your proposition may have some value, but since the Christian God is immutable and morals are the outflow of His character, your argument falls.
If the matter of the existence of God was unequivocally put to rest tomorrow, my life would be affected not at all. I would continue to live in the exact same way. How about you?
It has been unequivocally put to rest in my life, and it changed me completely.
The DoI says that rights are endowed by a "Creator." Why are you so sure that the Creator mentioned is the one worshipped by you? It is sufficient that individuals have rights as a function of their existence. If you wish to label that phenomenon God, feel free.
All you have to do is read the writings of the founders - 95% of them were professing Christians. Even B. Franklin, the putative deist icon of modern skeptics, called for prayer at the Const. Convention as he made references to the God of the bible (i.e., "if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground..."). Obviously, it is not sufficient to just say individuals have rights "just because," otherwise the DofI would not have attributed them to God. Quite obviously, if they are not from God, then a tyrant can easily abrogate them. Are you going to tell the tyrant, "Hey, you can't take away my rights because they are a function of my existence"? He will laugh at you.
Again, I will note that if rights have no eternal source, then they have no force and can be changed by any man who feels like it (and often are!). Please note that the most infamous and brutal dictators of all time were men who thumbed their nose at the notion of absolute morals and God. If you look at history, it is God-fearing men who respected universal rights (Washington and our other foundedrs) and morals. All you have to do to see this is compare the American revolution with the French revolution. The American revolution (based in moral principle and conducted by godly men) was a controlled revolution that ended in peace and prosperity; the French Revolution was grounded in secular humanism and ended in the Reign of Terror and Dictatorship. History tells the story.
That's correct, but saying it doesn't make it true, and let us remember that it was white men (Christians) who got rid of slavery. Human Equality is a self-evident truth that exists whether or not men follow it. On the other hand, take Hitler - a man who believed in evolution, and believed that the jews evolved from a different ancestor than Aryans. See where darwinism takes you?
There were arguments based on "science" and arguments based on religion -- Africans were descendents of Ham and were being punished by God.
So? Bad arguments are bad arguments and absolute truth has nothing to do with religion or science. By the way, the Ham argument is not biblical - it is contrived.
All of these arguments seem absurd now, but they were believed in their time. Which goes to show that evil people will find a way to rationalize their deeds, using whatever the prevailing ideology or theology happens to be.
I agree, with the caveat that the truth is the truth no matter what any man says.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. - James 3:17
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. – I Cor 2:12-16
I am very glad that the founders recognized that God is immutable, i.e. they used the word unalienable.
After all, if God could change, our rights would not be unalienable and thus, negotiable. If the rights were granted by human device, they could be withdrawn in the same fashion. Indeed, we are only secure in our rights, when the majority believes in the immutable Creator.
Marcel-Paul Schützenberger refers to Dawkins' appeal to mathematics as a fatal attraction primarily because mathematicians are epistemological zealots.
Fatal attraction pretty much sums up what I have found everywhere I have looked for evolution analysis in mathematics and its cousins, physics and information theory: von Neumann, Yockey, Schützenberger, Patten, Chaitin, Rocha, t'Hooft, Penrose, Wolfram...
That's why I concluded early on that modern evolutionists were embracing the randomness pillar to their own peril, i.e. they should be more malleable to avoid disaster. After reading Schützenberger, I'm thinking the common descent pillar may be endangered as well.
I think that term was used in connection with rights, not God. It's a legal term, meaning "cannot be sold or given away." In other words, you can't sell your life, liberty, or your right to own property. Such rights are inherent in you, and stay with you as long as you live. "Alienability" was a hot concept back then, because in the feudal system, land wasn't alienable -- it stayed with the owner and his progeny.
I'm thinking you're right. Even if one generally accepted macro-evolution why the insistance on common descent?
(Rhetorical question. I know the answer.)
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.