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."
What is lame consists of building up something from scratch and attributing it to another. First, dino bones are dino bones. There is no inference involved. Something is what you call it. The inference that is quite easily rejected is similar to the assertion that Mesonychus is the ancestor of Shamu.
Secondly, I mentioned nothing of black-body, however I did mention experiments that demonstrate that a rod cell is activated by single quanta.
I'd like to point out that the scriptures I've posted are neither "claims" nor "facts", they are moral laws attributed directly to the word of God, with no interpretation by me.
As for context, it is clear throughout the Bible that being a slave is an unhappy, involuntary condition. This is acknowledged by provisions in the Law forbidding taking fellow Hebrews as slaves. So why is it OK to make slaves of other human beings?
bzzzzt. WRONG again! Evidently you have not read a word I wrote about historical Israel. Tell you what, why don't you just move on - I have better things to do than argue with a person of your inveterate bias.
Does that mean our founding fathers overreached the Bible in declaring liberty to be "unalienable". Sounds like ex thinks its OK to sell one's liberty. ;^)
Perhaps. And if that is the case, I believe he should be free to do so. But I might raise a fuss if he tries to sell mine.
And I will say again that you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and are thrashing like a hooked trout. Your contention is ludicrous and your cited evidence is absurd. Slavery in Roman times wasn't one whit more civilized than in the anti-bellum South, as anyone who ever took a world history course can tell you. You started out this argument contending that you knew what the source and details of absolute morality was. You said it was from the book, so defend the bleeding book. "Context" my precious behind. If you have to stray from the source of absolute morality to defend the words in the source of absolute morality, you've already lost the argument before you opened your yap.
I do not understand 1Cor 1:14 for the precise reason that it is, painfully, patently, obviously, totally irrelevant to your argument, of course.
The absolute source of morality is totally incomprehensible to me. Well, now--isn't that a swell argument in favor of it? I'll bet God and my girlfriend are aligned on the subject of whether I should attend all those incomprehensible french art films too.
Oh, come on--this is jesuistry. You can't see a quanta with your faculties, even if you stand on your head and hold your breath until you turn blue. if you could, you'd have suggested to me how by now. It is inference through quite a maze of physics history that allows you to believe in such an incredibly unlikely-looking entity, photon-capturing contraption in hand or not.
This does not differ significantly from the inductive leaps of faith that allow you to interpret dino bones to mean dinos relate to one another along a continuous line of descent.
Both are cases of abstraction from the details of events we observe requiring a deep commitment to inferential reasoning. You cannot interepret what the instrument you are so proud of tells you without knowledge supplied by a century of thinking about the Black Body phenomena--an event far removed from your viscerally accessable event horizon.
Oh, really? Take another look. Slaves can "advance" themselves in position (by becoming special indoor pets instead of field hands, whose life expectancy was about 7 years, or mine slaves, or galley slaves, whose life expectancy was measured in months). Slaves are girded all about with the protection of the law?
Your site is laughable, and my characterization of it reasonable "in context".
I already admitted it over and over. To the extent that both are involuntary, both are heinous. To the extent that God permits both to be beaten to death with cudgels by their master (under certain constraints--great comfort that for the beatee, eh?) Both do not meet my qualifications for absolute moralityhood.
This is what we used to call in rhetoric class a distinction without a difference. If God's 10th Amendment tells me I cannot covet my neeighbor's manservant, OR ANYTHING THAT IS THY NEIGHBOR'S. What am I supposed to think? Is God telling me not to hire away the help? Gee, that's worthy of a Commandment, isn't it? Why isn't there a Commandment for eating bats? What kind of lame, arbitrary Commandment-generation system is God using, anyway. Dice tossing?
Prove it. So far you've proved nothing other than your bias. A survey world history course hardly even touches on roman slavery, and certainly doesn't compare antebellum slavery to it. Where is your source for this statement other than your biased head? I took several courses on world history and you don't even study roman slavery in any depth until you get to an upper level course on the roman empire, and I would bet a month's pay you haven't taken any. Again, you need to to refute the essay point by point - if he is wrong, then you must show it with something other than an assertion. So far, I am the only one who has backed anything up with a historical analysis. You posted a pathetic url from a god-hater's website which is blatantly dishonest in treatment of scriptures - typical of ignorant skeptics. You say my website was a joke, but compared to the website you posted, it's a landmark treatise! Your bias is palpable! You don't really want to investigate this complex issue, do you? I don't see your refutation of any the points in the essay, and since you can't or won't do that, you can only continue to rely on repeated assertions like "slavery in the bible is no different from antebellum slavery" over and over and over gain.
As I told js, Paul clearly instructs slaves and masters to love each other, and he instructs Philemon to love his slave as a brother. These are undeniable in their love content, yet you and your website say the NT supports or condones malicious antebellum-style slavery! bwahaahaha!
Let me tell you a little secret - the bible is historical - that is an unassailable FACT, as evidenced by the FACT that the world history survey classes you speak of take much of their info from the bible in their sections on ancient civilizations; and as evidenced by the FACT that over 5,000 archeological discoveries have confirmed biblical passages. Now, the question becomes, does context matter in historical analysis? Yes or no? (awaiting your answer with baited breath...can't wait). If context doesn't matter then anyone can interpret it any way they want and you are stuck in a relativistic time warp.
If you have to stray from the source of absolute morality to defend the words in the source of absolute morality, you've already lost the argument before you opened your yap.
I can see you either (1) know very little about historiography or factual historical analysis, or (2) you don't want to be confused with any facts becuase you woudl rather hold on to your favored method, which is "contempt prior to investigation."
I think our exchange is over as it has deteriorated into something less than an honest discussion, as you are clearly intellectually dishonest. You can't ignore historical context and remain objective. You are myopically biased - pure and simple. So just go away. You believe anything you want, I really don't give a flip, but I refuse to play your games. I got better things to do than waste my time on the likes of you.
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.